Standards in Artificial Intelligence

A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence is at
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html -- updated today.

"Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3f5f5dc3@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=blue]
> A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence
> is at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html --
> updated today.[/color]

Besides not having anything to do with C++, you should
stop posting your notices here because you are a crank.
You claim to have a "theory of mind", but fail to recognize
two important criteria for a successful theory: explanation
and prediction. That is, a good theory should *explain
observed phenomena*, and *predict non-trivial
phenomena*. From what I have skimmed of your "theory",
it does neither (though I suppose you think that it does
well by way of explanation).

In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.
Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
ports on a server. When I saw this, and many other things
on your site, I laughed. This is such a naive and simplistic
view of intelligence that you surely cannot be expected
to be taken seriously.

I dare say one of the most advanced AI projects in
existence is Cog. The philosophy behind Cog is that
an AI needs a body. You say more or less the same
thing. However, the second part of the philosophy behind
Cog is that a simple working robot is infinitely better
than an imaginary non-working robot. That's the part
you've missed. Cog is designed by some of the field's
brightest engineers, and funded by one of the last
strongholds of AI research. And as far as success
goes, Cog is a child among children. You expect to
create a fully developed adult intelligence from scratch,
entirely in software, using nothing more than the
volunteer labor of gullible programmers and your own
musings. This is pure comedy.

At one point, you address programmers who might
have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
irrelevant. These kinds of musings are forgivable when
coming from an idealistic young high school student
who is just learning about AI for the first time. But the
prolific nature of the work implies that you have been
at this for quite some time.

Until such time as you can A) show that your theory
predicts an intelligence phenomenon that is both novel
and later confirmed by experiment or observation of
neurological patients, or B) produce an artifact that is
at least as intelligent as current projects, I must conclude
that your "fibre theory" is just so much wishful rambling.

The level of detail you provide clearly shows that you
have no real understanding of what it takes to build a
successful AI, let alone something that can even
compete with the state of the art. The parts that you
think are detailed, such as your cute ASCII diagrams,
gloss over circuits that researchers have spent their
entire lives studying, which you leave as "an exercise
for the programmer". This is not only ludicrous, but
insulting to the work being done by legitimate
researchers, not to mention it insults the intelligence
of anyone expected to buy your "theory".

Like many cranks and crackpots, you recognize that
you need to insert a few scholarly references here and
there to add an air of legitimacy to your flights of fancy.
However, a close inspection of your links shows that
you almost certainly have not read and understood
most of them, or A) you would provide links *into* the
sites, rather than *to* the sites (proper bibliographies
don't say: "Joe mentioned this in the book he published
in '92" and leave it at that), or B) you wouldn't focus
on the irrelevant details you do.

A simple comparison of your model with something
a little more respectable, such as the ACT-R program
at Carnegie-Mellon, shows stark contrasts. Whereas
your "model" is a big set of ASCII diagrams and some
aimless wanderings on whatever pops into your head
when you're at the keyboard, the "models" link (note
the plural) on the ACT-R page takes you to what...?
To a bibliography of papers, each of which addresses
some REAL PROBLEM and proposes a DETAILED
MODEL to explain the brain's solution for it. Your
model doesn't address any real problems, because
it's too vague to actually be realized.

And that brings us to the final point. Your model has
components, but the components are at the wrong
level of detail. You recognize the obvious fact that
the sensory modalities must be handled by
specialized hardware, but then you seem to think that
the rest of the brain is a "tabula rasa". To see why
that is utterly wrong, you should take a look at Pinker's
latest text by the same name (The Blank Slate).
The reason the ACT-R model is a *collection* of
models, rather than a single model, is very simple.
All of the best research indicates that the brain is
not a general-purpose computer, but rather a
collection of special-purpose devices, each of which
by itself probably cannot be called "intelligent".

Thus, to understand human cognition, it is necessary
to understand the processes whereby the brain
solves a *PARTICULAR* problem, and not how it
might operate on a global scale. The point being
that the byzantine nature of the brain might not make
analysis on a global scale a useful or fruitful avenue
of research. And indeed, trying to read someone's
mind by looking at an MRI or EEG is like trying to
predict the stock market by looking at the
arrangement of rocks on the beach.

Until you can provide a single model of the precision
and quality of current cognitive science models, for
a concrete problem which can be tested and
measured, I must conclude that you are a crackpot
of the highest order. Don't waste further bandwidth
in this newsgroup or others with your announcements
until you revise your model to something that can be
taken seriously (read: explains observed phenomena
and makes novel predictions).

Dave

"David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:[color=blue]
> "Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:3f5f5dc3@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=green]
>> A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence
>> is at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html --
>> updated today.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> [...] In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
> 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.[/color]

http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.
[color=blue]
> Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
> indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
> ports on a server. [...][/color]

http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis explains
that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary (enVocab) module
to form an English lexical node for any new word detected
by the Audition module in the stream of user input.
[color=blue]
> [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
> have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
> given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
> the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
> irrelevant. [...][/color]

http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#hardware (q.v.)
explains that not "the size of some programmer's hardware" counts
but rather the amount of memory available to the artificial Mind.

The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and ambitious.
Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other languages:

http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ with starter code;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/java.html -- see Mind.JAVA 1 and 2;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/lisp.html -- Lisp AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html -- first Perl module;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/prolog.html -- Prolog AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/python.html -- Python AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ruby.html -- Ruby AI Blog (OO AI);
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/scheme.html -- Scheme AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see "Mind.VB #001" link.

AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.

The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.

AI has been solved in theory and in primitive, free AI source code.
Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate and proliferate.

A.T. Murray
--
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- review by Dr. Ben G.
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN Notices.

Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
service provider.

In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <wolof@freemail.hu> wrote:[color=blue]
> Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
> service provider.[/color]

Seems on topic to every group posted to to me. Also an interesting
project. But I guess you had to actually read his post to figure
that out, Mr. Net-Cop.

--arne

arnet@hpcvplnx.cv.hp.com wrote:[color=blue]
> In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <wolof@freemail.hu> wrote:[color=green]
>> Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for
>> a new service provider.[/color]
>
> Seems on topic to every group posted to to me. Also an interesting
> project. But I guess you had to actually read his post to figure
> that out, Mr. Net-Cop.[/color]

Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
the charter of this newsgroup:

"First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
discussion
of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
ANSI/ISO
language standard. "

If all that is not enough the list of the newsgroups he cross-posted to
should indicate that the topicality is questionable.

This newsgroup (and I am afraid all languag newsgroups are such) is not
created as a place for discussion of specific programming problems,
especially not if the post is cross-posted to unrelated newsgroups.

Discussion of specific C++ solutions would be topical, but not a genral
discussion for several languages. For that comp.programming etc. should be
used.

--
WW aka Attila

"White Wolf" <wolof@freemail.hu> wrote
[color=blue]
> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
> the charter of this newsgroup:
>
> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
> discussion
> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
> ANSI/ISO
> language standard. "[/color]

Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that far.

Regards, Buster

Buster wrote:[color=blue]
> "White Wolf" <wolof@freemail.hu> wrote
>[color=green]
>> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then
>> look at the charter of this newsgroup:
>>
>> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
>> discussion
>> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
>> ANSI/ISO
>> language standard. "[/color]
>
> Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that
> far.[/color]

I did not go anywhere. I was here, in this newsgroup. The topic went far.

--
WW aka Attila

White Wolf wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
> the charter of this newsgroup:
>
> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
> discussion
> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
> ANSI/ISO
> language standard. "
>[/color]

[cross-posts removed]

Technically we don't have a charter (the group pre-dates newsgroup
charters). That's actually from the welcome message. But it's close enough.

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

Kevin Goodsell wrote:[color=blue]
> White Wolf wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>
>> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then
>> look at the charter of this newsgroup:
>>
>> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
>> discussion
>> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
>> ANSI/ISO
>> language standard. "
>>[/color]
>
> [cross-posts removed]
>
> Technically we don't have a charter (the group pre-dates newsgroup
> charters). That's actually from the welcome message. But it's close
> enough.[/color]

Well, it is the text, which defines the newsgroups purpose of existence.
While it may not be called a charter - IMHO - it is the same thing. ;-)
Anyways my "problem" is with the excess cross-posting and not necessarily
with the topic of AI with C++.

--
WW aka Attila

"White Wolf" <wolof@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:bk07cm$hfs$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...[color=blue]
> Buster wrote:[color=green]
> > "White Wolf" <wolof@freemail.hu> wrote
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then
> >> look at the charter of this newsgroup:
> >>
> >> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
> >> discussion
> >> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
> >> ANSI/ISO
> >> language standard. "[/color]
> >
> > Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that
> > far.[/color]
>
> I did not go anywhere. I was here, in this newsgroup. The topic went[/color]
far.[color=blue]
>[/color]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lazy attitude
to editing the newsgroups these posting were sent to means that as a
comp.lang.python reader I have toi listen you you bitching and moaning about
what's appropriate in comp.lang.c++?

By all means try to keep posters of that group to the charter, but DON'T
subject others to your diatribes ;-)

regards
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/

Steve Holden wrote:[color=blue]
> People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lazy
> attitude to editing the newsgroups these posting were sent to means
> that as a comp.lang.python reader I have toi listen you you bitching
> and moaning about what's appropriate in comp.lang.c++?
>
> By all means try to keep posters of that group to the charter, but
> DON'T subject others to your diatribes ;-)[/color]

*PLONK*
--
WW aka Attila

"White Wolf" <wolof@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:bk23rr$7ei$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...[color=blue]
> Steve Holden wrote:[color=green]
> > People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lazy
> > attitude to editing the newsgroups these posting were sent to means
> > that as a comp.lang.python reader I have toi listen you you bitching
> > and moaning about what's appropriate in comp.lang.c++?
> >
> > By all means try to keep posters of that group to the charter, but
> > DON'T subject others to your diatribes ;-)[/color]
>
> *PLONK*[/color]

Ooh, that *hurts*. Not.

Well, now I won't annoy "White Wolf" (what a pretentious pseudonym, BTW),
aka Atilla the Net-Cop, with this follow-up, can I say how sorry I am for
the rest of comp.lang.c++ that you have to listen to that kind of rubbish.
Fortunately, adults usually realise that these issues die down much more
quickly when ignored.

This is the only post that adding me to his kill-list will filter out as I'm
not a habitual poster to c.l.c++, and don't intend to bore you any further
:-)

Have a nice day.

regards
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/

"Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3f61f9ce@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=blue]
> "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
> [...][color=green]
> > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
> > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.[/color]
>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.[/color]

Brittle. Language-specific. Non-scalable. You are trying
to build something "intelligent", aren't you?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
> > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
> > ports on a server. [...][/color]
>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
> explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
> (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
> new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
> user input.[/color]

Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is embarrassingly
underspecified, the notion of indexing words is just silly. If
a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable idea.
But trying to simulate human speech with a database-like
dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and the combinatorial
nature of language is going to rear its ugly head when you try
to scale your system to realistic proportions. Hence, why
programs like SHRDLU were good at their blocks worlds,
but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
quick look at something you wrote:

6.4. Introduce aspects of massively parallel ("maspar")
learning by letting many uniconceptual filaments on the
mindgrid coalesce into conceptual minigrids that
redundantly hold the same unitary concept as a massively
parallel aggregate with massively parallel associative tags,
so that the entire operation of the AI Mind is massively
parallel in all aspects except such bottleneck factors as
having only two eyes or two ears -- in the human tradition.

Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
"uniconceptual filaments"? "comceptual minigrids"?
"massively parallel aggregate"? Where is the glossary for
your pig Latin? How on earth is a programmer supposed
to build a computational model from this fluff? Read your
mind? She certainly can't read your text. This sounds more
like a motivational speech from a pointy-haired boss in a
Dilbert strip than instructions for how to build an "AI Mind".
I would parody it, but you've done a fine job yourself. Here's
the real cheerleading right here:

Then go beyond human frailties and human limitations
by having any number ad libitum of local and remote
sensory input devices and any number of local and
remote robot embodiments and robotic motor
opportunities. Inform the robot of human bondage in
mortal bodies and of robot freedom in possibilities yet
to be imagined.

Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
> > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
> > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
> > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
> > irrelevant. [...][/color]
>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#hardware
> (q.v.) explains that not "the size of some programmer's
> hardware" counts but rather the amount of memory
> available to the artificial Mind.[/color]

The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
have not given enough detail to build a working model. It's
like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
than one processor, huh? I suppose you think the Sony
"Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
could feel human?
[color=blue]
> The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
> ambitious.[/color]

There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
too much fibre for me to digest.
[color=blue]
> Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
> languages:[/color]

If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
being (b)led by the blind.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
> "Mind.VB #001" link.[/color]

This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
already has a higher IQ than you.
[color=blue]
> AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
> http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.[/color]

Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
you any day of the week.
[color=blue]
> The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
> and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.[/color]

And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
crossover, selection, and mutation?
[color=blue]
> AI has been solved in theory[/color]

LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
illegal, because it's obviously great stuff!
[color=blue]
> and in primitive, free AI source code.[/color]

Here is an example of "primitive, free AI source code":

10 PRINT "Hello, world!"

See? It's got a speech generation and emotion engine
built right in! And the AI is so reliable, it will never display
a bad attitude, even if you tell it to grab you a cold one
from the fridge. It always has a cheerful, positive
demeanor. It is clearly self-aware, because it addresses
others as being distinct from itself. And it has a theory of
mind, because it knows that others expect a greeting when
meeting for the first time. Unfortunately, it has no memory,
so every meeting is for the first time. However, its output
is entirely consistent, given this constraint. I guess I've
just proved that "AI has been solved in theory"!
[color=blue]
> Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
> and proliferate.[/color]

I'm still waiting to see *your* mind germinate. I've watched
grass grow faster. While ad homs are usually frowned
upon, I don't see any harm when applied to someone who
cannot be reasoned with anyway. Since you seem to have
single-handedly "solved the AI problem", I'd like to ask
you a few questions I (and I'm sure many others) have.

1) How does consciousness work?
2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
that I do? How do we know?
3) How are long-term memories formed?
4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract
reasoning?
5) How does language work?
6) How do emotions work?

Please don't refer me to sections of your site. I've seen
enough of your writing to know that the answers to my
questions cannot be found there.

Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human
brains are collections of specialized problem solvers
which must each be understood in considerable detail
in order to produce anything remotely intelligent. You
never gave a rebuttal, which tells me you don't have one.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and start out by
reading Society of Mind, by Minsky. After that, read
any good neurobiology or neuroscience text to see just
how "blank" your brain is when it starts out. Pinker
has several good texts you should read. There's a
reason why he's a professor at MIT, and you're a
crackpot trying to con programmers into fulfilling your
ridiculous fantasies.

Dave

"David B. Held" wrote on Sat, 13 Sep 2003:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
>> > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.[/color][/color][/color]
ATM:[color=blue][color=green]
>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> Brittle.[/color]
ATM:
You are right. It is precariously brittle. That brittleness
is part of the "Grand Challenge" of building a viable AI Mind.
First we have to build a brittle one, then we must trust the
smarter-than-we-are crowd to incorporate fault-tolerance.
DBH:[color=blue]
> Language-specific.[/color]
ATM:
Do you mean "human-language-specific" or "programming-language"?
With programming-language variables, we have to start somewhere,
and then we let adventitious AI coders change the beginnings.
With variables that lend themselves to polyglot human languages,
we achieve two aims: AI coders in non-English-speaking lands
will feel encouraged to code an AI speaking their own language;
and AI Minds will be engendered that speak polyglot languages.
Obiter dictu -- the Mentifex "Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind" --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html -- features
a plausible explanation of how to implant multiple Chomskyan
syntaxes and multiple lexicons within one unitary AI Mind.
The AI textbook AI4U page 35 on the English language module --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/english.html -- and
the AI textbook AI4U page 77 on the Reify module --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/reify.html -- and the
AI textbook AI4U page 93 on the English bootstrap module --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html -- all show
unique and original diagrams of an AI Mind that contains
the thinking apparatus for multiple human languages --
in other words, an AI capapble of Machine Translation (MT).

DBH:[color=blue]
> Non-scalable.[/color]
ATM:
Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we attain
critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then we scale up.

DBH:[color=blue]
> You are trying to build something "intelligent", aren't you?[/color]
ATM:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html -- Machine...
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- Intelligence.

DBH:[color=blue][color=green]
> > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
> > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
> > ports on a server. [...][/color][/color]
ATM:[color=blue]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
> explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
> (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
> new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
> user input.[/color]

DBH:
Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is embarrassingly
underspecified, the notion of indexing words is just silly.
ATM:
Nevertheless, here at the dawn of AI (flames? "Bring 'em on.")
we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve fibers,
and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start somewhere.

DBH:[color=blue]
> If a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable idea.
> But trying to simulate human speech with a database-like
> dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and the combinatorial
> nature of language is going to rear its ugly head when you try
> to scale your system to realistic proportions. Hence, why
> programs like SHRDLU were good at their blocks worlds,[/color]

http://www.semaphorecorp.com/misc/shrdlu.html -- by T. Winograd?
[color=blue]
> but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
> do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
> quick look at something you wrote:[/color]

6.4. Introduce aspects of massively parallel ("maspar")
learning by letting many uniconceptual filaments on the
mindgrid coalesce into conceptual minigrids that
redundantly hold the same unitary concept as a massively
parallel aggregate with massively parallel associative tags,
so that the entire operation of the AI Mind is massively
parallel in all aspects except such bottleneck factors as
having only two eyes or two ears -- in the human tradition.
[color=blue]
> Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
> "uniconceptual filaments"?[/color]
ATM:
Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.
[color=blue]
> "conceptual minigrids"?[/color]
ATM:
Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or minigrid
distributed across the entire mindgrid, for massive redundancy --
which affords security or longevity of concepts, and which
also aids in massively parallel processing (MPP).
[color=blue]
> "massively parallel aggregate"?[/color]

[color=blue]
> Where is the glossary for your pig Latin?
> How on earth is a programmer supposed to build a
> computational model from this fluff? Read your mind?
> She certainly can't read your text. This sounds more
> like a motivational speech from a pointy-haired boss in a
> Dilbert strip than instructions for how to build an "AI Mind".
> I would parody it, but you've done a fine job yourself.[/color]

Ha! You're funny there! <grin>
[color=blue]
> Here's the real cheerleading right here:[/color]

Then go beyond human frailties and human limitations
by having any number ad libitum of local and remote
sensory input devices and any number of local and
remote robot embodiments and robotic motor
opportunities. Inform the robot of human bondage in
mortal bodies and of robot freedom in possibilities yet
to be imagined.
[color=blue]
> Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
> up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
>> > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
>> > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
>> > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
>> > irrelevant. [...][/color]
>>
>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#hardware
>> (q.v.) explains that not "the size of some programmer's
>> hardware" counts but rather the amount of memory
>> available to the artificial Mind.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
> have not given enough detail to build a working model.[/color]
ATM:
If the AI coder has an opportunity to go beyond 32-bit and
use a 64-bit machine, then he/she/it ought to do it, because
once we arrive at 64-bits (for RAM), we may stop a while.
[color=blue]
> It's like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
> then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
> 8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
> will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
> big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
> single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
> project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
> of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
> you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
> than one processor, huh?[/color]
ATM:
The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis) may
preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."
[color=blue]
> I suppose you think the Sony
> "Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
> could feel human?[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
>> ambitious.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
> you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
> I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
> look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
> too much fibre for me to digest.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
>> languages:[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
> However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
> C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
> least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
> that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
> being (b)led by the blind.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
>> "Mind.VB #001" link.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
> even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
> already has a higher IQ than you.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
>> http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
> and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
> cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
> you any day of the week.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
>> and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
> crossover, selection, and mutation?[/color]
ATM:
http://www.seedai.e-mind.org tries to track each new species
of AI Mind. We do _not_ want standard Minds; we only wish
to have some standards in how we go about coding AI Minds.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> AI has been solved in theory[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
> illegal, because it's obviously great stuff![/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > and in primitive, free AI source code.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Here is an example of "primitive, free AI source code":[/color]
[color=blue]
> 10 PRINT "Hello, world!"[/color]
[color=blue]
> See? It's got a speech generation and emotion engine
> built right in! And the AI is so reliable, it will never display
> a bad attitude, even if you tell it to grab you a cold one
> from the fridge. It always has a cheerful, positive
> demeanor. It is clearly self-aware, because it addresses
> others as being distinct from itself. And it has a theory of
> mind, because it knows that others expect a greeting when
> meeting for the first time. Unfortunately, it has no memory,
> so every meeting is for the first time. However, its output
> is entirely consistent, given this constraint. I guess I've
> just proved that "AI has been solved in theory"![/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
>> and proliferate.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I'm still waiting to see *your* mind germinate. I've watched
> grass grow faster. While ad homs are usually frowned
> upon, I don't see any harm when applied to someone who
> cannot be reasoned with anyway. Since you seem to have
> single-handedly "solved the AI problem", I'd like to ask
> you a few questions I (and I'm sure many others) have.[/color]
[color=blue]
> 1) How does consciousness work?[/color]
ATM:
Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is fooled
into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_ conscious.
[color=blue]
> 2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
> that I do? How do we know?[/color]

ATM:
You've got me there. Qualia totally non-plus me :(
[color=blue]
> 3) How are long-term memories formed?[/color]

ATM:
Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes* LTM.
[color=blue]
> 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract reasoning?[/color]

ATM:
Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain funding.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - $send____.
[color=blue]
> 5) How does language work?[/color]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U.
[color=blue]
> 6) How do emotions work?[/color]

ATM:
By the influence of physiological "storms" upon ratiocination.
[color=blue]
> Please don't refer me to sections of your site. I've seen
> enough of your writing to know that the answers to my
> questions cannot be found there.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
> misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
> alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
> the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
> claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human[/color]

IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.
[color=blue]
> brains are collections of specialized problem solvers
> which must each be understood in considerable detail
> in order to produce anything remotely intelligent. You
> never gave a rebuttal, which tells me you don't have one.
> Why don't you do yourself a favor and start out by
> reading Society of Mind, by Minsky. After that, read
> any good neurobiology or neuroscience text to see just
> how "blank" your brain is when it starts out. Pinker
> has several good texts you should read. There's a
> reason why he's a professor at MIT, and you're a
> crackpot trying to con programmers into fulfilling your
> ridiculous fantasies.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Dave[/color]

Arthur
--
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ AI Weblog
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth

"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bjuh6u$bg9$1@news.astound.net...[color=blue]
> "Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:3f61f9ce@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=green]
> > "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
> > [...][/color][/color]

This AI thread has nothing to do with Python (or Java, and maybe not
much C++ either, that I can see). Please delete comp.lang.python (and
maybe the other languages) from any further followups. Note: googling
all newsgroups for 'Mentifex' gets over 4000 hits. I wonder if there
is really much new to say.

Terry J. Reedy

"Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3f659fd5@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=blue]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > Brittle.[/color]
> ATM:
> You are right. It is precariously brittle. That brittleness
> is part of the "Grand Challenge" of building a viable AI
> Mind. First we have to build a brittle one, then we must
> trust the smarter-than-we-are crowd to incorporate fault-
> tolerance.[/color]

You have cross-posted this to comp.ai.neural-nets, but
you obviously don't understand neural nets, or you would
know that a distributed representation is not brittle.
[color=blue]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > Language-specific.[/color]
> ATM:
> Do you mean "human-language-specific" or
> "programming-language"?[/color]

Human language, of course. Your system is very Anglo-
centric. I suppose that's because you probably only
know English, but it seems ridiculous to me to define
a standard for intelligence in terms of one language.
[color=blue]
> With programming-language variables, we have to
> start somewhere,[/color]

Why not start at the solution? You said that "AI had
been solved in theory". Why can't you apply that
theory to produce a sophisticated AI on the first go?
[color=blue]
> and then we let adventitious AI coders change the
> beginnings.[/color]

"Change the beginnings"?
[color=blue]
> [...]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html -- all show
> unique and original diagrams of an AI Mind that contains
> the thinking apparatus for multiple human languages --
> in other words, an AI capapble of Machine Translation
> (MT).[/color]

LOL!!! Yes, the diagrams are certainly "unique" and
"original". And they're about as useful as my "diagram" to
design a human teleporter:

**<%-%>*** &$ @-++=! [human gets transported here]

If you feel there isn't enough detail to accomplish the task,
you know what I feel like when I look at your diagrams.
[color=blue]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > Non-scalable.[/color]
> ATM:
> Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we
> attain critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then
> we scale up.[/color]

LOL!! You don't know what "scalable" means, do you?
You think I meant: "has small scale". But I meant: "won't
work well when scaled up".
[color=blue]
> [...]
> DBH:
> Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is
> embarrassingly underspecified, the notion of indexing
> words is just silly.
> ATM:
> Nevertheless, here at the dawn of AI (flames? "Bring 'em
> on.")[/color]

Ok, I'll oblige you...I wish something would "dawn" on you!
[color=blue]
> we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve
> fibers, and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start
> somewhere.[/color]

LOL!! Have you considered an artificial neural network
design? They have been studied for decades, have well-
known and desirable properties, and look nothing like
what you propose in your "theory". They have their own
set of problems, but it looks to me like you have no idea
what they are or how they work. One thing they do well
is content-addressable memory. That means that instead
of finding entities via numerical index, you find them via
their features.
[color=blue]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > If a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable
> > idea. But trying to simulate human speech with a
> > database-like dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and
> > the combinatorial nature of language is going to rear its
> > ugly head when you try to scale your system to realistic
> > proportions. Hence, why programs like SHRDLU were
> > good at their blocks worlds,[/color]
>
> http://www.semaphorecorp.com/misc/shrdlu.html -- by
> T. Winograd?[/color]

Using Google so far is your only demonstrated skill. I
respect that more than anything you've had to say.
[color=blue]
> [...][color=green]
> > "uniconceptual filaments"?[/color]
> ATM:
> Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.[/color]

LOL!!! Wow. If you were smart enough to write comics
instead of theories, you could give Scott Adams a run for his
money. I can only assume you got this idea from your meager
understanding of how the human brain works. And I further
postulate that you thought to yourself: "Hey, if it works for the
brain it must work for my AI Mind!" Well, I'm afraid you're
about a century behind the times. There is nothing intrinsic
to a real nerve fiber to suggest that it can store information,
let alone something as nebulous and possibly complex and
structured as a "concept".

In fact, real neurons store information in the *connections*.
That is, the pattern of configuration and the synaptic weights.
But it's ridiculous that I should have to explain this to
someone who has "solved AI in theory". Whereas you could
not use your fiber theory to build one useful working model,
Rosenblatt already built a working model about half a century
ago showing that connection strengths *could* lead to useful
computation. How can you call this the "dawn of AI" when
you haven't even solved a single toy problem, and people
50 years ago who are long dead have solved numerous ones?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but you don't even
have pudding yet! (Or maybe that's all you have...)
[color=blue][color=green]
> > "conceptual minigrids"?[/color]
> ATM:
> Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or
> minigrid distributed across the entire mindgrid, for
> massive redundancy -- which affords security or longevity
> of concepts, and which also aids in massively parallel
> processing (MPP).[/color]

This is all well and good, but until you define how fibers
"coalesce", it doesn't *mean* anything. You also don't
explain how MPP occurs, or why concepts would be
insecure or short-lived.
[color=blue]
> [...][color=green]
> > The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
> > have not given enough detail to build a working model.[/color]
> ATM:
> If the AI coder has an opportunity to go beyond 32-bit and
> use a 64-bit machine, then he/she/it ought to do it, because
> once we arrive at 64-bits (for RAM), we may stop a while.
> [...]
> ATM:
> The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis)
> may preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."[/color]

LOL!!! Ok, let me get this straight...your theory maps
concepts onto "simulated nerve fibers", but "unitariness of
mind" precludes *distributed computing*??? Ok, this is
absolute hilarity! Umm...the whole point of neural network
architecture is that computation is distributed over a large
number of simple computational devices. You at least
understand this to some extent, because you see the value
of neurons, even if you don't really understand how they
work. But a "mind grid" of "nerve fibers" is the ultimate
distributed processing system!!! What does it matter if they
are simulated on one processor or one million? You
yourself said that mind != brain. That's about the only true
thing on your site, and the idea is at least hundreds of years
old. And now, you seem to think that "unitariness of mind"
demands "unitariness of brain". You thinking isn't just
muddled...it's completely off the mark.
[color=blue]
> [...][color=green]
> > 1) How does consciousness work?[/color]
> ATM:
> Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is
> fooled into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_
> conscious.[/color]

LOL!!! You just replaced one black box with another.
Namely, you replaced "consciousness" with "searchlight
of attention" and "sensation of consciousness". Barring
the obvious fact that the second part is embarrassingly
circular, it's interesting that you think consciousness is
so trivial that it can be described in two sentences.
Serious researchers have turned this question into an
entire field of inquiry, offering numerous theories which
attempt to explain various aspects of consciousness. But
you just demonstrated an overwhelming ignorance of both
the state of the art and the nature of consciousness itself
with your trite summary.

Attention is almost certainly a necessary condition for
consciousness, but it is hardly sufficient. Someone just
posted on this newsgroup a "Quine" program for C++.
That is a program which produces its own source as
the output. Is that sufficient "attention"? Is that program
"conscious"? What about a bacterium that is aware of
its chemical and luminous environment, and attends to
each in turn. Is such a bacterium conscious? Your
definition is woefully indiscriminate and incomplete.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees
> > red that I do? How do we know?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> You've got me there. Qualia totally non-plus me :([/color]

Really? They are exactly the reason that an AI needs a
body. And I guarantee that any theory of AI which does
not address qualia in some way will not be taken
seriously by anyone who studies cognitive science. Even
people who don't believe in qualia (like Dennett)
acknowledge that it must be addressed.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 3) How are long-term memories formed?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes*
> LTM.[/color]

"Probably"? So if you asked Newton: "What is the ballistic
trajectory of a cannonball absent air resistance", you would
be satisfied with: "Probably some polynomial curve"? If
Newton claimed to have a complete theory of mechanics,
*I*, for one, would not be satisfied with such a nebulous
answer. Neither am I satisfied with such a vague answer
from someone who claims to have "solved AI in theory".
The formation of long-term memories is such a fundamental
operation of intelligent agents that to treat it so non-chalantly
betrays nothing but a contempt for serious cog. sci. work.
After all, the formation of long-term memories is obviously
critical to *learning*, and an entity that couldn't learn could
barely be said to be intelligent.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract
> > reasoning?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain
> funding. http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26
> - $send____.[/color]

Ah, I see. So you reply to a question about the one feature
of intelligence that separates man from other creatures with
a single term, and then have the audacity to ask for money???
Humans engage in far more than syllogistic reasoning. You
should at least know what other types of reasoning exist.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 5) How does language work?[/color]
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
> -- AI4U.[/color]

You know what's really funny about that link? This part:

Customers who shopped for this item also shopped for these items:
a.. Hidden Order by John H. Holland
b.. The Career Programmer by Christopher Duncan
c.. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken
I'm not sure why customers who shopped for your book
also shopped for Al Franken's book, but it seems to be a
rather humorous juxtaposition. Anyway, I certainly am not
going to pay $30 to have you give me some hare-brained
idea of how language works.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 6) How do emotions work?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> By the influence of physiological "storms" upon
> ratiocination.[/color]

Oh, the "storms". Of course...why didn't I think of that?
How's the weather in your brain today, Arthur? Is it
raining? Got a little water on the brain? I think your
answers speak volumes about your theory. I just hope
would-be programmers get to see your answers
to the deep questions of AI before spending any time
on your project. Unless they're bad programmers. In
which case, I hope they waste time on your project
instead of subjecting the rest of the world to their code.

If you want a much better explanation of how emtions
work, you should really check out Damasio's work. It
is at least as engaging as your "storms" explanation, and
is backed by actual neurological studies.
[color=blue]
> [...][color=green]
> > Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
> > misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
> > alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
> > the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
> > claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human[/color]
>
> IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.
> [...][/color]

Oh, so you had a hard time understanding: "You're a crank;
defend yourself"? Somehow, that doesn't suprise me. Now,
you say that you are serious. But, only serious researchers
can admit that they are wrong. So, let's put your theory to
the falsifiability test. What would it take to convince you
that your fiber theory is wrong? Be careful, because if you
say: "Nothing", then you expose yourself for the dogmatic
crackpot that you are. And if you give some implausible
test, then your theory will be viewed as being useless, since
it can't be tested.

So that leaves you with providing a legitimate test. But
this is where you are stuck, because real theories make
predictions, and it is those predictions which are tested.
Since your theory makes no predictions, you won't be
able to propose a reasonable test of it. So I will do it
for you. Why don't we pit your theory against all the
other theories which were put forth during the *real*
"dawn of AI". Why don't you use your theory to describe
a solution to chess playing, checkers playing, simple
letter recognition, theorem proving, or any problem for
which a historical symbolic AI solution exists. This seems
like a rather fair challenge, since I'm only asking you to
do as much as *WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED*. If you fail to solve even one of
these problems with your theory, then it should leave
you to wonder if your state of AI really isn't more than
50 years behind the times. Given the state of hardware
today, I expect you to be able to solve several of the
given problems in the same AI.

Note that a "solution" must be specific enough that a
programmer who doesn't know anything about your
theory could write it. That means you need to describe
algorithms all the way down to pseudocode, or use
standard algorithms. Anything like: "Add the sensorium
module here" will be considered an admission of failure.
Good luck, and I look forward to the validation of your
grand theory!

Dave

"David B. Held" wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003:
[...][color=blue][color=green]
>> ATM:
>> Do you mean "human-language-specific" or
>> "programming-language"?[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> Human language, of course. Your system is
> very Anglo-centric. I suppose that's because
> you probably only know English,[/color]
ATM:
+German +Russian +Latin +Greek
[Saepe circumambulo cogitans Latine; ergo scio me esse.]
[color=blue]
> but it seems ridiculous to me to define a
> standard for intelligence in terms of one language.[/color]
ATM:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html
merely uses English to discuss polyglot AI Minds.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> With programming-language variables, we have to
>> start somewhere,[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> Why not start at the solution? You said that "AI had
> been solved in theory". Why can't you apply that
> theory to produce a sophisticated AI on the first go?[/color]
ATM:
Implementations of the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind at
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html are hard to do.

Having written AI in REXX, Forth and JavaScript, now I seek help in
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ with new AI code;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/java.html -- see Mind.JAVA #1 & #2;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/lisp.html -- Lisp AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html -- first Perl module;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/prolog.html -- Prolog AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/python.html -- Python AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ruby.html -- Ruby AI Blog (OO AI);
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/scheme.html -- Scheme AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see "Mind.VB #001" link.
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/scheme.html -- Scheme AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see "Mind.VB #001" link.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> and then we let adventitious AI coders change the
>> beginnings.[/color][/color]
DBH[color=blue]
> "Change the beginnings"?[/color]
ATM:
The whole idea of standards for coding non-standard AI diversity
is that, along each branch of AI Mind evolution, the implementers
are free to change any module, any choice of variables, and any
theoretical consideration, for the sake of survival of the fittest.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html -- all show
>> unique and original diagrams of an AI Mind that contains
>> the thinking apparatus for multiple human languages --
>> in other words, an AI capapble of Machine Translation
>> (MT).[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> LOL!!! Yes, the diagrams are certainly "unique" and
> "original". And they're about as useful as my "diagram" to
> design a human teleporter:[/color]
[color=blue]
> **<%-%>*** &$ @-++=! [human gets transported here][/color]
[color=blue]
> If you feel there isn't enough detail to accomplish the task,
> you know what I feel like when I look at your diagrams.[/color]
ATM:
One reaon the AI4U book may prove to be valuable over time is
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ 35 diagrams.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> DBH:[color=darkred]
>> > Non-scalable.[/color]
>> ATM:
>> Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we
>> attain critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then
>> we scale up.[/color][/color]

LOL!! You don't know what "scalable" means, do you?
You think I meant: "has small scale". But I meant: "won't
work well when scaled up".

[...] ATM:[color=blue][color=green]
>> we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve
>> fibers, and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start
>> somewhere.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> LOL!! Have you considered an artificial neural network
> design? They have been studied for decades, have well-
> known and desirable properties, and look nothing like
> what you propose in your "theory". They have their own
> set of problems, but it looks to me like you have no idea
> what they are or how they work. One thing they do well
> is content-addressable memory. That means that instead
> of finding entities via numerical index, you find them via
> their features.[/color]
ATM:
Over the years I have actually been afraid to learn too much
about artificial neural networks (ANN) because they might
subtly introduce an improper or flawed mindset into my thinking.
Meanwhile the Mentifex AI Minds in Forth and JavaScript
turned out to be their own form of associative neural net.

[...][color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > "uniconceptual filaments"?[/color]
>> ATM:
>> Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> LOL!!! Wow. If you were smart enough to write comics
> instead of theories, you could give Scott Adams a run for his
> money. I can only assume you got this idea from your meager
> understanding of how the human brain works. And I further
> postulate that you thought to yourself: "Hey, if it works for the
> brain it must work for my AI Mind!" Well, I'm afraid you're
> about a century behind the times. There is nothing intrinsic
> to a real nerve fiber to suggest that it can store information,
> let alone something as nebulous and possibly complex and
> structured as a "concept".[/color]
ATM:
As you go on to elaborate below, of course the neuronal fiber
holds a concept by storing information in the *connections*.

The novel, original-contribution of the Mentifex AI theory at
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory3.html is how to
organize conceptual fibers into two layers below the surface:
a deep-structure layer where thinking occurs by dint of
"spreading activation" from Psi concept to Psi concept; and
a shallow lexical area where lexical (vocabulary) fibers
control words stored in the surface area of auditory memory.
[color=blue]
> In fact, real neurons store information in the *connections*.
> That is, the pattern of configuration and the synaptic weights.
> But it's ridiculous that I should have to explain this to
> someone who has "solved AI in theory". Whereas you could
> not use your fiber theory to build one useful working model,
> Rosenblatt already built a working model about half a century
> ago showing that connection strengths *could* lead to useful
> computation. How can you call this the "dawn of AI" when
> you haven't even solved a single toy problem, and people
> 50 years ago who are long dead have solved numerous ones?
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but you don't even
> have pudding yet! (Or maybe that's all you have...)[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > "conceptual minigrids"?[/color]
>> ATM:
>> Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or
>> minigrid distributed across the entire mindgrid, for
>> massive redundancy -- which affords security or longevity
>> of concepts, and which also aids in massively parallel
>> processing (MPP).[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> This is all well and good, but until you define
> how fibers "coalesce", it doesn't *mean* anything.[/color]
ATM:
If I had only one fiber or "grandmother cell" to hold
the concept of my Czech-speaking grandmother Anna,
the reliability of the concept would be impaired and
at risk, because the single fiber could easily die.
But if we imagine a new fiber being assigned to the
concept of "Anna" everytime we use the concept, so that
over time a redundancy of grandmother cells accrues,
then each concept becomes a minigrid within a mindgrid.

DBH:[color=blue]
> You also don't explain how MPP occurs, or why
> concepts would be insecure or short-lived.[/color]

http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html#masspar
describes how massively redundant elements in the brain-mind
provide an unbroken chain of massively parallel processing.
It is really an elegant beauty in the theory -- how the
maspar fibergrids send maspar associative tags over to
acoustic engrams stored with massive redundancy in audition.

[...][color=blue][color=green]
>> ATM:
>> The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis)
>> may preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> LOL!!! Ok, let me get this straight...your theory maps
> concepts onto "simulated nerve fibers", but "unitariness of
> mind" precludes *distributed computing*??? Ok, this is
> absolute hilarity! Umm...the whole point of neural network
> architecture is that computation is distributed over a large
> number of simple computational devices. You at least
> understand this to some extent, because you see the value
> of neurons, even if you don't really understand how they
> work. But a "mind grid" of "nerve fibers" is the ultimate
> distributed processing system!!! What does it matter if they
> are simulated on one processor or one million? You
> yourself said that mind != brain. That's about the only true
> thing on your site, and the idea is at least hundreds of years
> old. And now, you seem to think that "unitariness of mind"
> demands "unitariness of brain". You thinking isn't just
> muddled...it's completely off the mark.[/color]
ATM:
We have heard a lot of talk about portions of the Internet
coming together to form one giant "Global Brain" in distributed
processing. Uneasiness ensues among us "neurotheoreticians."
How would you like it if your own brain-mind were distributed
across several earthly continents, with perhaps one lunar lobe,
and old engrams stored four light years away at Alpha Centauri?

The problem is continuity and the proper mesh of associations
during the "spreading activation" process. On one local computer,
functioning as the "brain" element of the "brain-mind" duality,
we may expect a successful fine-tuning of the cascades and
meanderings of associations from local concept to local concept.
I don't mind if knowledge base (KB) data are stored remotely,
because then it just seems that it took a while to remember
something (say, the name and SSAN of any given American, TIA),
but I want the actual thinking to occur SNAP! ZAP! CRACKLE!
right here *locally* on the quasi-cranial local mindgrid.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...][color=darkred]
>> > 1) How does consciousness work?[/color]
>> ATM:
>> Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is
>> fooled into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_
>> conscious.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> LOL!!! You just replaced one black box with another.
> Namely, you replaced "consciousness" with "searchlight
> of attention" and "sensation of consciousness". Barring
> the obvious fact that the second part is embarrassingly
> circular, it's interesting that you think consciousness is
> so trivial that it can be described in two sentences.
> Serious researchers have turned this question into an
> entire field of inquiry, offering numerous theories which
> attempt to explain various aspects of consciousness. But
> you just demonstrated an overwhelming ignorance of both
> the state of the art and the nature of consciousness itself
> with your trite summary.[/color]
ATM:
http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html is my summary.
[color=blue]
> Attention is almost certainly a necessary condition for
> consciousness, but it is hardly sufficient. Someone just
> posted on this newsgroup a "Quine" program for C++.
> That is a program which produces its own source as
> the output. Is that sufficient "attention"? Is that program
> "conscious"? What about a bacterium that is aware of
> its chemical and luminous environment, and attends to
> each in turn. Is such a bacterium conscious? Your
> definition is woefully indiscriminate and incomplete.[/color]
ATM:
Consciousness is no longer the problem that it used to be.
When an AI Mind becomes aware of itself -- voila!
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > 3) How are long-term memories formed?[/color]
>>
>> ATM:
>> Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes*
>> LTM.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> "Probably"? So if you asked Newton: "What is the ballistic
> trajectory of a cannonball absent air resistance", you would
> be satisfied with: "Probably some polynomial curve"? If
> Newton claimed to have a complete theory of mechanics,
> *I*, for one, would not be satisfied with such a nebulous
> answer. Neither am I satisfied with such a vague answer
> from someone who claims to have "solved AI in theory".
> The formation of long-term memories is such a fundamental
> operation of intelligent agents that to treat it so non-chalantly
> betrays nothing but a contempt for serious cog. sci. work.
> After all, the formation of long-term memories is obviously
> critical to *learning*, and an entity that couldn't learn could
> barely be said to be intelligent.[/color]
ATM:
Since I use Occam's Razor (and I know it by heart in the original
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.") in the
theory and design of AI minds, I shy away from distinguishing
too much between "short-term memory" (STM) and long-term (LTM).
I strongly suspect that memory engrams are laid down seriatim
without regard to STM and LTM distinctions made by humans,
and that the STM-LTM distinctions are artificial distinctions
connected more with *access* to memory than engrammation of memory.
(I could be proved wrong, but it won't really matter much.)
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract
>> > reasoning?[/color]
>>
>> ATM:
>> Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain
>> funding. http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26
>> - $send____.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Ah, I see. So you reply to a question about the one feature
> of intelligence that separates man from other creatures with
> a single term, and then have the audacity to ask for money???
> Humans engage in far more than syllogistic reasoning. You
> should at least know what other types of reasoning exist.[/color]
ATM:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ai...html#reasoning shows
imagistic, logical and syllogistic as mentioned in the AI4U book.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > 5) How does language work?[/color]
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
>> -- AI4U.[/color][/color]

[...][color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > 6) How do emotions work?[/color]
>>
>> ATM:
>> By the influence of physiological "storms" upon
>> ratiocination.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> Oh, the "storms". Of course...why didn't I think of that?
> How's the weather in your brain today, Arthur? Is it
> raining? Got a little water on the brain? I think your
> answers speak volumes about your theory. I just hope
> would-be programmers get to see your answers
> to the deep questions of AI before spending any time
> on your project. Unless they're bad programmers. In
> which case, I hope they waste time on your project
> instead of subjecting the rest of the world to their code.[/color]
[color=blue]
> If you want a much better explanation of how emtions
> work, you should really check out Damasio's work. It
> is at least as engaging as your "storms" explanation, and
> is backed by actual neurological studies.[/color]
ATM:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/emotion.html is my take
(AI4U page 80, Chapter 19) on the side-issue of emotions.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...][color=darkred]
>> > Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
>> > misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
>> > alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
>> > the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
>> > claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human[/color]
>>
>> IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.
>> [...][/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> Oh, so you had a hard time understanding: "You're a crank;
> defend yourself"? Somehow, that doesn't suprise me.[/color]
ATM:
In <bjnqsa$snd$1@news.astound.net> you stated the question with:[color=blue]
> You recognize the obvious fact that
> the sensory modalities must be handled by
> specialized hardware, but then you seem to think that
> the rest of the brain is a "tabula rasa".[/color]
ATM:
I seem to myself to think that any brain-mind,
natural or artificial, will turn out to be
vast amounts of memory storage supervised and
controlled by relatively small intellectual structures.
[color=blue]
> To see why
> that is utterly wrong, you should take a look at Pinker's
> latest text by the same name (The Blank Slate).
> The reason the ACT-R model is a *collection* of
> models, rather than a single model, is very simple.
> All of the best research indicates that the brain is
> not a general-purpose computer, but rather a
> collection of special-purpose devices, each of which
> by itself probably cannot be called "intelligent".[/color]

DBH <bk4rab$jl3$1@news.astound.net>:[color=blue]
> Now, you say that you are serious. But, only serious researchers
> can admit that they are wrong. So, let's put your theory to
> the falsifiability test. What would it take to convince you
> that your fiber theory is wrong? Be careful, because if you
> say: "Nothing", then you expose yourself for the dogmatic
> crackpot that you are. And if you give some implausible
> test, then your theory will be viewed as being useless, since
> it can't be tested.[/color]
[color=blue]
> So that leaves you with providing a legitimate test. But
> this is where you are stuck, because real theories make
> predictions, and it is those predictions which are tested.
> Since your theory makes no predictions, you won't be
> able to propose a reasonable test of it.[/color]
ATM:
My theory predicts prescriptively how to make artificial minds.
[color=blue]
> So I will do it
> for you. Why don't we pit your theory against all the
> other theories which were put forth during the *real*
> "dawn of AI". Why don't you use your theory to describe
> a solution to chess playing, checkers playing, simple
> letter recognition, theorem proving, or any problem for
> which a historical symbolic AI solution exists.[/color]
ATM:
Brute force techniques in chess are not genuine AI.
Checkers is a deterministic game. For pattern recognition,
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/audrecog.html is my work.
Theorem proving, I'll grant you, I missed out on.
[color=blue]
> This seems
> like a rather fair challenge, since I'm only asking you
> to do as much as *WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED*.[/color]
ATM:
Let's do something new for a change. Let's code AI in
many different programming languages and let's let evolve
not only the AI Minds but cummunities of AI adepts to
tend to the AI Minds and nurture them into full maturity.
[color=blue]
> If you fail to solve even one of these problems with
> your theory, then it should leave you to wonder if
> your state of AI really isn't more than 50 years behind
> the times. Given the state of hardware today,
> I expect you to be able to solve several of the
> given problems in the same AI.[/color]
ATM:
OK, we'll take on consciousness; emotion; reasoning;
dreaming (but not yet hypnosis); and superintelligence.
[color=blue]
> Note that a "solution" must be specific enough that a
> programmer who doesn't know anything about your
> theory could write it. That means you need to describe
> algorithms all the way down to pseudocode, or use
> standard algorithms. Anything like: "Add the sensorium
> module here" will be considered an admission of failure.[/color]
ATM:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html is at Sensorium.
[color=blue]
> Good luck, and I look forward to the validation of your
> grand theory![/color]
ATM:
Thank you. Your contributions here will go down in history,
and future graduate students (hum/rob) will study your mind.[color=blue]
> Dave[/color]

Arthur
--
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth

The only standard is that Arthur T. Murray
will crosspost useless drivel to random groups.

Get this OUT of comp.arch please.

--

... Hank

Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net

"Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3f659fd5@news.victoria.tc.ca...

<drivel removed>

"Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3f66145f@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=blue]
> "David B. Held" wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003:[color=green]
> > Human language, of course. Your system is
> > very Anglo-centric. I suppose that's because
> > you probably only know English,[/color]
>
> +German +Russian +Latin +Greek
> [Saepe circumambulo cogitans Latine; ergo scio
> me esse.][/color]

In that case, giving named concepts a numerical index is
an exercise in futility, since there is no 1-1 mapping
between words and concepts in different languages. For
example, if the word "FahrvergnYgen" has an index of
93824 in the geVocab module, what index(es) does that
correspond to in the enVocab module?
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Implementations of the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind
> at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html are hard
> to do.[/color]

Yes indeed, but not for the reasons you think. They are
hard to do because they are underspecified, not because
the model is complex. In fact, the problem is that the
model is too *simple*. *That* is what makes an
implementation "hard to do".
[color=blue]
> Having written AI in REXX, Forth and JavaScript,[/color]

But not a mentifax mind-whole wheat celery AI?
[color=blue]
> now I seek help[/color]

It's about time!
[color=blue]
> in
> [...][/color]

Your list repeats a few lines. Maybe the help wasn't so good.
I guess that's what you consider "advertising".
[color=blue]
> [...]
> One reaon the AI4U book may prove to be valuable
> over time is
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
> 35 diagrams.[/color]

Ah yes. But then, you should have called it: "Intelligence in
35 Diagrams". I underestimated you. I thought you were
just a random crackpot, but in reality, you are a dirty
capitalist. Not that all capitalists are dirty. Just that some
have less than honorable ways of obtaining capital. I see
now that there *is* financial gain for you involved, which
is why it is so important for me to help you make a fool of
yourself in public. After all, we wouldn't want any naive
people wasting their money on your book, would we?

You've reduced intelligence to 35 diagrams, but you were
the first one. Simply amazing. Your own intelligence must
be truly dizzying.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Over the years I have actually been afraid to learn too
> much about artificial neural networks (ANN) because they
> might subtly introduce an improper or flawed mindset into
> my thinking.[/color]

LOL!!! If you are that weak-minded, perhaps you shouldn't
be reading anything at all. That is a very convenient excuse
for being wholly ignorant of the state-of-the-art.
[color=blue]
> Meanwhile the Mentifex AI Minds in Forth and
> JavaScript turned out to be their own form of associative
> neural net.[/color]

You mean the "non-function" form?
[color=blue]
> [...]
> As you go on to elaborate below, of course the neuronal
> fiber holds a concept by storing information in the
> *connections*.[/color]

You're the only person I know that calls them "fibers".
Everyone else calls them "neurons" or "units". When you
say "fiber", it makes me think you are talking about the
axon, and don't really understand how neurons work.
[color=blue]
> The novel, original-contribution of the Mentifex AI theory
> at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory3.html is how to
> organize conceptual fibers into two layers below the
> surface: a deep-structure layer where thinking occurs by
> dint of "spreading activation" from Psi concept to Psi
> concept; and a shallow lexical area where lexical
> (vocabulary) fibers control words stored in the surface
> area of auditory memory.[/color]

LOL!!! Well, that's all very poetic, but not very useful for
building an intelligent artifact. I would hardly describe a
separate semantic and syntactic system for natural language
processing a "novel, original contribution". Such a thing is
so obvious that even a rank novice in AI would probably
*start* with such a structure if designing a natural language
system.
[color=blue]
> [...][color=green]
> > This is all well and good, but until you define
> > how fibers "coalesce", it doesn't *mean* anything.[/color]
>
> If I had only one fiber or "grandmother cell" to hold
> the concept of my Czech-speaking grandmother Anna,
> the reliability of the concept would be impaired and
> at risk, because the single fiber could easily die.
> But if we imagine a new fiber being assigned to the
> concept of "Anna" everytime we use the concept, so
> that over time a redundancy of grandmother cells
> accrues, then each concept becomes a minigrid within
> a mindgrid.[/color]

LOL!!! This just gets better and better!!! Somehow,
you have managed to take an argument for distributed
representation, and provide the most ridiculous,
simplistic solution imaginable! You are the first person
I have encountered that believes simple redundancy of
local information has any merit whatsoever. Most
people follow up the grandmother cell argument with a
description of distributed representations in neural
networks, but it is obvious that you don't know how
those work.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html#masspar
> describes how massively redundant elements in the
> brain-mind provide an unbroken chain of massively
> parallel processing.[/color]

No it doesn't. It does nothing of the sort.
[color=blue]
> It is really an elegant beauty in the theory -- how the
> maspar fibergrids send maspar associative tags over
> to acoustic engrams stored with massive redundancy
> in audition.[/color]

If it is a beauty, then you should spend some time
describing it in depth...with examples.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> We have heard a lot of talk about portions of the
> Internet coming together to form one giant "Global
> Brain" in distributed processing. Uneasiness ensues
> among us "neurotheoreticians." How would you like
> it if your own brain-mind were distributed across
> several earthly continents, with perhaps one lunar lobe,
> and old engrams stored four light years away at Alpha
> Centauri?[/color]

LOL!!! You cannot possibly be serious!!! If I thought
you were actually intelligent, I would chalk this up to
satire.
[color=blue]
> The problem is continuity and the proper mesh of
> associations during the "spreading activation" process.
> On one local computer, functioning as the "brain" element
> of the "brain-mind" duality, we may expect a successful
> fine-tuning of the cascades and meanderings of
> associations from local concept to local concept.[/color]

Umm...unless you simulate the fibers in hardware, you are
going to have to use a serialization strategy for simulating
your network. In that case, adding processors *increases*
the responsiveness of the network.
[color=blue]
> I don't mind if knowledge base (KB) data are stored
> remotely, because then it just seems that it took a while
> to remember something (say, the name and SSAN of
> any given American, TIA), but I want the actual thinking
> to occur SNAP! ZAP! CRACKLE! right here *locally*
> on the quasi-cranial local mindgrid.[/color]

I think your mindgrid has already suffered too many SNAP!
ZAP! CRACKLE!s.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html is my summary.[/color]

The fact that you sum up consciousness in 4 weak,
meaningless paragraphs is surpassed only by the fact
that you can't spell "conscius" [sic].
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Consciousness is no longer the problem that it used to
> be. When an AI Mind becomes aware of itself -- voila![/color]

What does it mean for an AI to be aware of itself? What
does it mean for an AI to be aware? If I point a video
camera at a t.v. which displays the input to the video
camera, is the camera aware of itself? Is it conscious?
Consciousness is only a non-problem for people who
live in very small worlds.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> I strongly suspect that memory engrams are laid down
> seriatim without regard to STM and LTM distinctions
> made by humans, and that the STM-LTM distinctions
> are artificial distinctions connected more with *access*
> to memory than engrammation of memory. (I could be
> proved wrong, but it won't really matter much.)[/color]

Since you don't even know how memory works in the
first place, I would say that you're already wrong. I
suppose you think that brains remember everything they
experience.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ai...html#reasoning
> shows imagistic, logical and syllogistic as mentioned in the
> AI4U book.[/color]

Guess what? I tried out your Javascript AI, and it was at
least as smart as you. You must have uploaded your own
reasoning skills, because I typed in "Arthur is dumb", and the
AI spat out a stream of babbling nonsense like: "I know
Arthur I am dumb Arthur am dumb I am" I thought it was
beautiful and profound, and that the AI was trying to tell me
something important. Oh, I didn't detect any use of syllogistic
reasoning in its output, which leads me to conclude that
you don't know how to implement syllogistic reasoning,
let along any other form of reasoning. And I would be
extremely impressed if you could describe how to
implement syllogistic reasoning of a general nature in a
neural network.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/emotion.html is my take
> (AI4U page 80, Chapter 19) on the side-issue of emotions.[/color]

LOL@"side issue". Once again, we see a childlike
simplicity in your understanding. Emotion is fundamental
to consciousness, but this notion from the latest research
has completely eluded your grasp.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> I seem to myself to think that any brain-mind, natural
> or artificial, will turn out to be vast amounts of memory
> storage supervised and controlled by relatively small
> intellectual structures.[/color]

Already you are proven wrong. Virtually any cognitive
study using MRI can show that much of the brain is *not*
engaged in *memory*, but in *computation*.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> My theory predicts prescriptively how to make artificial
> minds.[/color]

No it doesn't. If it actually described an artificial mind in
enough detail to build one, then that might be the case.
But your theory is too vague to create so much as a
modern art sculpture (which requires very little input at
all). Whatever you try to pass off as "AI" on your web
site is hilarious. Don't even attempt to refer to that as a
validation of your "theory".
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Brute force techniques in chess are not genuine AI.[/color]

Really? Do you know how humans play chess? Novices
spend most of their time checking the legality of moves.
Does that sound familiar? It should. Their strategy more
or less amounts to a shallow brute force search of the
game tree. Only at the most advanced levels does the
play involve complex game-specific reasoning.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Checkers is a deterministic game.[/color]

So is go, but nobody has written an AI that can beat the
best humans.
[color=blue]
> For pattern recognition,
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/audrecog.html is my
> work.[/color]

Umm...I see a link to source code, but I don't know Forth,
so I can't tell if the code does anything interesting. Perhaps
you can post a session with input and the program output.
I need a good laugh, though you've been quite generous
and provided me with many already.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Let's do something new for a change. Let's code AI in
> many different programming languages and let's let evolve
> not only the AI Minds but cummunities of AI adepts to
> tend to the AI Minds and nurture them into full maturity.[/color]

I intend to do just that, but not using the Mentifex model,
and not out in the open. But until such time as I have a
working prototype, I'm not going to ramble on about
speculations and mindless musings. Maybe there is a
lesson for you to be learned there. Oh, wait...this is all
a marketing gimmick for your book. While you are getting
in your free amazon.com links, I hope that anyone who
would click on them reads the surrounding text to see
what a crackpot you are. Just for fun, I'll throw in a
link of my own, just to confuse the folks that are just
scanning through looking for links to click on:

http://www.arthur-t-murray-is-a-crac...entifax/mentos
[color=blue]
> [...]
> OK, we'll take on consciousness; emotion; reasoning;
> dreaming (but not yet hypnosis); and superintelligence.[/color]

Will you have a working prototype before I'm dead and
decomposed?
[color=blue]
> [...]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html is at Sensorium.[/color]

LOL!!! There's nothing there worth looking at!
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Thank you. Your contributions here will go down in history,
> and future graduate students (hum/rob) will study your mind.[/color]

If my contributions go down in history, it will be for something
meaningful and important...not a mere argument with a crazy
author.

Dave

"David B. Held" wrote on Tue, 16 Sep 2003:[color=blue]
> "Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:3f66145f@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=green]
>> "David B. Held" wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003:[color=darkred]
>> > Human language, of course. Your system is
>> > very Anglo-centric. I suppose that's because
>> > you probably only know English,[/color]
>>
>> +German +Russian +Latin +Greek
>> [Saepe circumambulo cogitans Latine; ergo scio
>> me esse.][/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> In that case, giving named concepts a numerical index is
> an exercise in futility, since there is no 1-1 mapping
> between words and concepts in different languages.[/color]
ATM:
Such reasoning about "futility" does not apply here,
where we make no attempt at a one-to-one (1-1) mapping.
Above a few yeastlike "starter" concepts in the English
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html bootstrap,
each AI Mind species dynamically assigns a numeric "nen"
(for English) number on the fly to each learned concept.
The proper inter-mind identifier for any concept is not
the English "nen" number or the German "nde" number or
the French "nfr" number or the Japanese "njp" number but --
(are you sitting down and ready to absorb a great shock?)
the natual-language *word* for the communicand concept!
[color=blue]
> For example, if the word "FahrvergnYgen" has an index of
> 93824 in the geVocab module, what index(es) does that
> correspond to in the enVocab module?[/color]
ATM:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#variable tells
why the German vocabulary module should be called "deVocab"
in accordance with the (International Standards Organization)
"ISO 639:1988 Extract: Codes for names of language" online at
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/lex/iso639.html (de = deutsch).

Normally it would be cheeky and presumptuous for an AI
parvenu and arriviste like myself to make bold to proclaim
a white paper of "Standards in Artificial Intelligence,"
but people began porting my AI Mind code into various
programming languages several years ago, and I had no
choice but to draw up a "Standards" document just to
make things easier for all concerned -- lest people
start "reinventing the wheel" or diverging too far.

If you don't mind my giving you some more ammunition
for things "Mentifex" to sneer at, then please notice
how craftily the new "AI Standards" white paper at
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html now
contains the exact same brain-mind ASCII diagram as
found on page 15 (HCI) and on the cover of the AI4U
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ book.

Sometimes I wonder if people, especially students,
who see the Mentifex AI Mind diagrams, simply assume
that the depicted layouts are part of the general
background of neuroscience and cognitive science,
without realizing how original the diagrams are.
There must eventually be some quite authoritative
diagrammatic depictions of how the brain-mind is
organized with respect to information-flow, so
we shall see if the 35 AI4U diagrams were right.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> One reaon the AI4U book may prove to be valuable
>> over time is
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
>> 35 diagrams.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> Ah yes. But then, you should have called it:
> "Intelligence in 35 Diagrams".[/color]
ATM:
The AI textbook AI4U (AI For You) has 34 mind-module diagrams,
one for each of the 34 chapters -- each about a single module.
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ai4u_157.html is diagram #35.

Notice how crafty it is in all the XYZ AI Weblogs (such as
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ AI Blog) to
link to "ai4u_157.html" as the "framework" on p. 157 of AI4U,
instead of to "mindloop.html" as the diagram was once called,
because now the (actually quite genuine) impression is given
that everything ties in with the wonderful new AI Mind design
that has metaoneirically been revealed to the world in AI4U.

ATM:[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> As you go on to elaborate below, of course the neuronal
>> fiber holds a concept by storing information in the
>> *connections*.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> You're the only person I know that calls them "fibers".
> Everyone else calls them "neurons" or "units". When you
> say "fiber", it makes me think you are talking about the
> axon, and don't really understand how neurons work.[/color]
ATM:
Logic dictates that the most important thing about neurons is how
elongated they are. If neurons were all punctiform cells like an
amoeba, there would be no long-distance transmission of signals
and there would be no diachronic persistence of conceptual ideas.
That is to say, the "longness" of neuronal fibers, each tagged
with as many as ten thousand associative tags to other concepts,
allows a concept to be embodied in one or more (redundant) fibers.

http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html -- Know Thyself --
the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind includes speculation that minds
may have evolved when originally dedicated sensory fibers broke
free by genetic saltation from their sensory-only dedication and
stumbled felicitously into a role of holding long-time conceptual
information rather than instantaneous-time sensory information.

ATM:[color=blue][color=green]
>> The novel, original-contribution of the Mentifex AI theory
>> at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory3.html is how to
>> organize conceptual fibers into two layers below the
>> surface: a deep-structure layer where thinking occurs by
>> dint of "spreading activation" from Psi concept to Psi
>> concept; and a shallow lexical area where lexical
>> (vocabulary) fibers control words stored in the surface
>> area of auditory memory.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> LOL!!! Well, that's all very poetic, but not very useful for
> building an intelligent artifact. I would hardly describe a
> separate semantic and syntactic system for natural language
> processing a "novel, original contribution". Such a thing is
> so obvious that even a rank novice in AI would probably *start*
> with such a structure if designing a natural language system.[/color]
ATM:
Yes, but where would the novice get such a system if not from AI4U?
Right here and now I would humbly like to ask paper-writers and
book-authors to cite the AI4U mind-diagrams and germane ideas in
their forthcoming publications so as to spread the thoery of mind,
with adjustments and even refutations where necessary. I give
blanket permission for anyone anywhere to reproduce the diagrams
and to re-fashion them into line-art far prettier than ASCII.

ATM:[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> We have heard a lot of talk about portions of the
>> Internet coming together to form one giant "Global
>> Brain" in distributed processing. Uneasiness ensues
>> among us "neurotheoreticians." How would you like
>> it if your own brain-mind were distributed across
>> several earthly continents, with perhaps one lunar lobe,
>> and old engrams stored four light years away at Alpha
>> Centauri?[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> LOL!!! You cannot possibly be serious!!! If I thought
> you were actually intelligent, I would chalk this up to
> satire.[/color]
ATM:
Since a brain-mind needs to be local, I am quite serious.

As an aside, please consider the following line of thought.
By the way, this same thing happens to me whenever I try
to read a paragraph or two of Esperanto -- an artificial
language which I do not know myself. As I stare at a
sentence in Esperanto, a very strange thing happens.
[Now remember, I am fluent in Latin, Germanic and Slavic
languages -- the Esperanto guy was Polish -- plus Greek.]
The meanings of the Esperanto words slowly surface in my
polyglot mind as I stare at each succeeding word, and I
feel as if I have known Esperanto automagically for years.
But yet I could never try to read a book in Esperanto --
it would be cranially painful -- like the scientist
father-figure trying to mindmeld with the Krell in
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0049223 -- Forbidden Planet.

Suppose that Reichsfuehrer Ashcroft and his Parteibonzen
were to set up a Total-Information-Awareness AI Mind
that knew everything about every American citizen and
every teenage or older inmate at the Guantanomo K-Z
and the other now emerging American concentration camps,
such as Novo-Sobibor near Baghdad International Airport.

Such an all-seeing, all-knowing Big-Brother-Mind would
only need some sort of RF-ID tag or other chance input
to start thinking about you and your entire life-span:
"As I think about Citizen Held, suddenly I remember...
his fingerprints, uh, wait a minute, his genome... and,
uh, it's in there somewhere... his every Usenet post."

The distributed Held-data are not in the Mind until
they are fetched, but BBN (Big-Brother-Noesis) *feels*
as if it knew the data all along, albeit recalling slowly.

ATM:[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html is my summary.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> The fact that you sum up consciousness in 4 weak,
> meaningless paragraphs is surpassed only by the fact
> that you can't spell "conscius" [sic].[/color]
ATM:
I shorten all Wintel filenames to be eight characters or fewer.
The name "conscius.html" happens to be perfectly good Latin.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> Let's do something new for a change. Let's code AI in
>> many different programming languages and let's let evolve
>> not only the AI Minds but cummunities of AI adepts to
>> tend to the AI Minds and nurture them into full maturity.[/color][/color]
DBH:[color=blue]
> I intend to do just that, but not using the Mentifex model,[/color]

Why not? You could make whatever changes you saw as needed,
and then your resulting AI would be a brand new Mind species.
[color=blue]
> and not out in the open. But until such time as I have a
> working prototype, I'm not going to ramble on about
> speculations and mindless musings. [...][/color]
[color=blue]
> Dave[/color]

Arthur
--
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth

Arthur,

The first person to create a full functional Artificial Intelligence will
have to solve all levels, from the simple low level calculation units
through the high level organization and information coding.

The neural network system seem to be the best method for low level
functions. The work shown in the late David Marrs book "Vision" does an
excellent job of showing how mid level functions may be organized, explored,
and represented. I have not seen a similar method for organizing the high
level functionality. I have read much of what you have published on the
internet. While I disagree with much of what you are doing, your "top level
down" approach has given me much to think about in my own explorations of
cognition. Reading through your material has allowed me to gain experience
with the scope of what is needed, and given some insight in what will be
required. Perhaps you are the only person in the field working at this level
today.

You may wish to take a long hard look at the distributed information
representations inherent in neural networks. You will find that it goes a
long way towards solving some of the intractable problems you are having
with the fiber concept. It is my guess that once you understand how they
work, and what they can do, you will be doing some major rethinking of your
top level functions. Another useful area is anatomical organizing on the
human neural systems. You will find that nature has anatomical divisions
that suggest high level organization. The division of function is very
different from what you are proposing. Since the natural system seems to
work, you may wish to spend more time looking at how the problem has been
solved in the human neurocomputer. I make these suggestions for my own
selfish reasons; you are the energizer bunny of the AI world. You have been
promoting your ideas for years; selflessly sharing your ideas with anyone
who would listen. I would like to see you correct some of the difficult
areas and move forward. Your successes would clearly be everyone's gain.

It is easy to criticize; quite another thing to create. It is very easy for
others to nit-pick the things you are doing. I can only assume that the
reason for the criticism is that they themselves have solved the problems
you are examining and are willing to show the better way. I am waiting for
them to post alternative methods for doing these high level functions, or to
suggest alternative ways of parsing and grouping the high level functions.

We are all working for much the same goals, with each coming at it from
their own directions, and with their own motivations. Thank you for making
the effort.

Mark Browne

"Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3f6745b1@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=blue]
> "David B. Held" wrote on Tue, 16 Sep 2003:[color=green]
> > "Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3f66145f@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=darkred]
> >> "David B. Held" wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003:
> >> > Human language, of course. Your system is
> >> > very Anglo-centric. I suppose that's because
> >> > you probably only know English,
> >>
> >> +German +Russian +Latin +Greek
> >> [Saepe circumambulo cogitans Latine; ergo scio
> >> me esse.][/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > In that case, giving named concepts a numerical index is
> > an exercise in futility, since there is no 1-1 mapping
> > between words and concepts in different languages.[/color]
> ATM:
> Such reasoning about "futility" does not apply here,
> where we make no attempt at a one-to-one (1-1) mapping.
> Above a few yeastlike "starter" concepts in the English
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html bootstrap,
> each AI Mind species dynamically assigns a numeric "nen"
> (for English) number on the fly to each learned concept.
> The proper inter-mind identifier for any concept is not
> the English "nen" number or the German "nde" number or
> the French "nfr" number or the Japanese "njp" number but --
> (are you sitting down and ready to absorb a great shock?)
> the natual-language *word* for the communicand concept!
>[color=green]
> > For example, if the word "FahrvergnYgen" has an index of
> > 93824 in the geVocab module, what index(es) does that
> > correspond to in the enVocab module?[/color]
> ATM:
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#variable tells
> why the German vocabulary module should be called "deVocab"
> in accordance with the (International Standards Organization)
> "ISO 639:1988 Extract: Codes for names of language" online at
> http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/lex/iso639.html (de = deutsch).
>
> Normally it would be cheeky and presumptuous for an AI
> parvenu and arriviste like myself to make bold to proclaim
> a white paper of "Standards in Artificial Intelligence,"
> but people began porting my AI Mind code into various
> programming languages several years ago, and I had no
> choice but to draw up a "Standards" document just to
> make things easier for all concerned -- lest people
> start "reinventing the wheel" or diverging too far.
>
> If you don't mind my giving you some more ammunition
> for things "Mentifex" to sneer at, then please notice
> how craftily the new "AI Standards" white paper at
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html now
> contains the exact same brain-mind ASCII diagram as
> found on page 15 (HCI) and on the cover of the AI4U
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ book.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people, especially students,
> who see the Mentifex AI Mind diagrams, simply assume
> that the depicted layouts are part of the general
> background of neuroscience and cognitive science,
> without realizing how original the diagrams are.
> There must eventually be some quite authoritative
> diagrammatic depictions of how the brain-mind is
> organized with respect to information-flow, so
> we shall see if the 35 AI4U diagrams were right.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [...]
> >> One reaon the AI4U book may prove to be valuable
> >> over time is
> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
> >> 35 diagrams.[/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > Ah yes. But then, you should have called it:
> > "Intelligence in 35 Diagrams".[/color]
> ATM:
> The AI textbook AI4U (AI For You) has 34 mind-module diagrams,
> one for each of the 34 chapters -- each about a single module.
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ai4u_157.html is diagram #35.
>
> Notice how crafty it is in all the XYZ AI Weblogs (such as
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ AI Blog) to
> link to "ai4u_157.html" as the "framework" on p. 157 of AI4U,
> instead of to "mindloop.html" as the diagram was once called,
> because now the (actually quite genuine) impression is given
> that everything ties in with the wonderful new AI Mind design
> that has metaoneirically been revealed to the world in AI4U.
>
> ATM:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [...]
> >> As you go on to elaborate below, of course the neuronal
> >> fiber holds a concept by storing information in the
> >> *connections*.[/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > You're the only person I know that calls them "fibers".
> > Everyone else calls them "neurons" or "units". When you
> > say "fiber", it makes me think you are talking about the
> > axon, and don't really understand how neurons work.[/color]
> ATM:
> Logic dictates that the most important thing about neurons is how
> elongated they are. If neurons were all punctiform cells like an
> amoeba, there would be no long-distance transmission of signals
> and there would be no diachronic persistence of conceptual ideas.
> That is to say, the "longness" of neuronal fibers, each tagged
> with as many as ten thousand associative tags to other concepts,
> allows a concept to be embodied in one or more (redundant) fibers.
>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html -- Know Thyself --
> the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind includes speculation that minds
> may have evolved when originally dedicated sensory fibers broke
> free by genetic saltation from their sensory-only dedication and
> stumbled felicitously into a role of holding long-time conceptual
> information rather than instantaneous-time sensory information.
>
> ATM:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> The novel, original-contribution of the Mentifex AI theory
> >> at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory3.html is how to
> >> organize conceptual fibers into two layers below the
> >> surface: a deep-structure layer where thinking occurs by
> >> dint of "spreading activation" from Psi concept to Psi
> >> concept; and a shallow lexical area where lexical
> >> (vocabulary) fibers control words stored in the surface
> >> area of auditory memory.[/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > LOL!!! Well, that's all very poetic, but not very useful for
> > building an intelligent artifact. I would hardly describe a
> > separate semantic and syntactic system for natural language
> > processing a "novel, original contribution". Such a thing is
> > so obvious that even a rank novice in AI would probably *start*
> > with such a structure if designing a natural language system.[/color]
> ATM:
> Yes, but where would the novice get such a system if not from AI4U?
> Right here and now I would humbly like to ask paper-writers and
> book-authors to cite the AI4U mind-diagrams and germane ideas in
> their forthcoming publications so as to spread the thoery of mind,
> with adjustments and even refutations where necessary. I give
> blanket permission for anyone anywhere to reproduce the diagrams
> and to re-fashion them into line-art far prettier than ASCII.
>
> ATM:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [...]
> >> We have heard a lot of talk about portions of the
> >> Internet coming together to form one giant "Global
> >> Brain" in distributed processing. Uneasiness ensues
> >> among us "neurotheoreticians." How would you like
> >> it if your own brain-mind were distributed across
> >> several earthly continents, with perhaps one lunar lobe,
> >> and old engrams stored four light years away at Alpha
> >> Centauri?[/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > LOL!!! You cannot possibly be serious!!! If I thought
> > you were actually intelligent, I would chalk this up to
> > satire.[/color]
> ATM:
> Since a brain-mind needs to be local, I am quite serious.
>
> As an aside, please consider the following line of thought.
> By the way, this same thing happens to me whenever I try
> to read a paragraph or two of Esperanto -- an artificial
> language which I do not know myself. As I stare at a
> sentence in Esperanto, a very strange thing happens.
> [Now remember, I am fluent in Latin, Germanic and Slavic
> languages -- the Esperanto guy was Polish -- plus Greek.]
> The meanings of the Esperanto words slowly surface in my
> polyglot mind as I stare at each succeeding word, and I
> feel as if I have known Esperanto automagically for years.
> But yet I could never try to read a book in Esperanto --
> it would be cranially painful -- like the scientist
> father-figure trying to mindmeld with the Krell in
> http://us.imdb.com/Title?0049223 -- Forbidden Planet.
>
> Suppose that Reichsfuehrer Ashcroft and his Parteibonzen
> were to set up a Total-Information-Awareness AI Mind
> that knew everything about every American citizen and
> every teenage or older inmate at the Guantanomo K-Z
> and the other now emerging American concentration camps,
> such as Novo-Sobibor near Baghdad International Airport.
>
> Such an all-seeing, all-knowing Big-Brother-Mind would
> only need some sort of RF-ID tag or other chance input
> to start thinking about you and your entire life-span:
> "As I think about Citizen Held, suddenly I remember...
> his fingerprints, uh, wait a minute, his genome... and,
> uh, it's in there somewhere... his every Usenet post."
>
> The distributed Held-data are not in the Mind until
> they are fetched, but BBN (Big-Brother-Noesis) *feels*
> as if it knew the data all along, albeit recalling slowly.
>
> ATM:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [...]
> >> http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html is my summary.[/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > The fact that you sum up consciousness in 4 weak,
> > meaningless paragraphs is surpassed only by the fact
> > that you can't spell "conscius" [sic].[/color]
> ATM:
> I shorten all Wintel filenames to be eight characters or fewer.
> The name "conscius.html" happens to be perfectly good Latin.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [...]
> >> Let's do something new for a change. Let's code AI in
> >> many different programming languages and let's let evolve
> >> not only the AI Minds but cummunities of AI adepts to
> >> tend to the AI Minds and nurture them into full maturity.[/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > I intend to do just that, but not using the Mentifex model,[/color]
>
> Why not? You could make whatever changes you saw as needed,
> and then your resulting AI would be a brand new Mind species.
>[color=green]
> > and not out in the open. But until such time as I have a
> > working prototype, I'm not going to ramble on about
> > speculations and mindless musings. [...][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Dave[/color]
>
> Arthur
> --
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
> http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
> http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth[/color]

As long as programming a machine to think remains as a final option for
artificial intelligence, then, although we may develop some very clever
machines, they will never aspire to anything more than the program itself.
Meaning that if real intelligence is to be "acquired", it will not be
through programming but rather, more likely, through a form of hardware
development that has the ability to "tap into" what is now considered to be
an ethereal universal consciousness. Only at this level will a machine begin
to compete with a human intelligence and truly have access to knowledge and
virtually unlimited memory.
We have that ability now, to an extent. However the powerful lure of the
digital domain to create at will, what we believe should be intelligent, is
nothing more than an elaborate tool that is actually holding us back; both
technically and philosophically.
Let's not get too excited about our so called break throughs in
programming........right direction, wrong tool.
Steven R. Grimm
http://biobotics.150m.com

"Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3f659fd5@news.victoria.tc.ca...[color=blue]
> "David B. Held" wrote on Sat, 13 Sep 2003:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
> >> > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.[/color][/color]
> ATM:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.[/color][/color]
> DBH:[color=green]
> > Brittle.[/color]
> ATM:
> You are right. It is precariously brittle. That brittleness
> is part of the "Grand Challenge" of building a viable AI Mind.
> First we have to build a brittle one, then we must trust the
> smarter-than-we-are crowd to incorporate fault-tolerance.
> DBH:[color=green]
> > Language-specific.[/color]
> ATM:
> Do you mean "human-language-specific" or "programming-language"?
> With programming-language variables, we have to start somewhere,
> and then we let adventitious AI coders change the beginnings.
> With variables that lend themselves to polyglot human languages,
> we achieve two aims: AI coders in non-English-speaking lands
> will feel encouraged to code an AI speaking their own language;
> and AI Minds will be engendered that speak polyglot languages.
> Obiter dictu -- the Mentifex "Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind" --
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html -- features
> a plausible explanation of how to implant multiple Chomskyan
> syntaxes and multiple lexicons within one unitary AI Mind.
> The AI textbook AI4U page 35 on the English language module --
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/english.html -- and
> the AI textbook AI4U page 77 on the Reify module --
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/reify.html -- and the
> AI textbook AI4U page 93 on the English bootstrap module --
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html -- all show
> unique and original diagrams of an AI Mind that contains
> the thinking apparatus for multiple human languages --
> in other words, an AI capapble of Machine Translation (MT).
>
> DBH:[color=green]
> > Non-scalable.[/color]
> ATM:
> Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we attain
> critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then we scale up.
>
> DBH:[color=green]
> > You are trying to build something "intelligent", aren't you?[/color]
> ATM:
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html -- Machine...
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- Intelligence.
>
> DBH:[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
> > > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
> > > ports on a server. [...][/color][/color]
> ATM:[color=green]
> > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
> > explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
> > (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
> > new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
> > user input.[/color]
>
> DBH:
> Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is embarrassingly
> underspecified, the notion of indexing words is just silly.
> ATM:
> Nevertheless, here at the dawn of AI (flames? "Bring 'em on.")
> we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve fibers,
> and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start somewhere.
>
> DBH:[color=green]
> > If a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable idea.
> > But trying to simulate human speech with a database-like
> > dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and the combinatorial
> > nature of language is going to rear its ugly head when you try
> > to scale your system to realistic proportions. Hence, why
> > programs like SHRDLU were good at their blocks worlds,[/color]
>
> http://www.semaphorecorp.com/misc/shrdlu.html -- by T. Winograd?
>[color=green]
> > but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
> > do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
> > quick look at something you wrote:[/color]
>
> 6.4. Introduce aspects of massively parallel ("maspar")
> learning by letting many uniconceptual filaments on the
> mindgrid coalesce into conceptual minigrids that
> redundantly hold the same unitary concept as a massively
> parallel aggregate with massively parallel associative tags,
> so that the entire operation of the AI Mind is massively
> parallel in all aspects except such bottleneck factors as
> having only two eyes or two ears -- in the human tradition.
>[color=green]
> > Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
> > "uniconceptual filaments"?[/color]
> ATM:
> Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.
>[color=green]
> > "conceptual minigrids"?[/color]
> ATM:
> Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or minigrid
> distributed across the entire mindgrid, for massive redundancy --
> which affords security or longevity of concepts, and which
> also aids in massively parallel processing (MPP).
>[color=green]
> > "massively parallel aggregate"?[/color]
>
>[color=green]
> > Where is the glossary for your pig Latin?
> > How on earth is a programmer supposed to build a
> > computational model from this fluff? Read your mind?
> > She certainly can't read your text. This sounds more
> > like a motivational speech from a pointy-haired boss in a
> > Dilbert strip than instructions for how to build an "AI Mind".
> > I would parody it, but you've done a fine job yourself.[/color]
>
> Ha! You're funny there! <grin>
>[color=green]
> > Here's the real cheerleading right here:[/color]
>
> Then go beyond human frailties and human limitations
> by having any number ad libitum of local and remote
> sensory input devices and any number of local and
> remote robot embodiments and robotic motor
> opportunities. Inform the robot of human bondage in
> mortal bodies and of robot freedom in possibilities yet
> to be imagined.
>[color=green]
> > Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
> > up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
> >> > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
> >> > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
> >> > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
> >> > irrelevant. [...]
> >>
> >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#hardware
> >> (q.v.) explains that not "the size of some programmer's
> >> hardware" counts but rather the amount of memory
> >> available to the artificial Mind.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
> > have not given enough detail to build a working model.[/color]
> ATM:
> If the AI coder has an opportunity to go beyond 32-bit and
> use a 64-bit machine, then he/she/it ought to do it, because
> once we arrive at 64-bits (for RAM), we may stop a while.
>[color=green]
> > It's like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
> > then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
> > 8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
> > will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
> > big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
> > single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
> > project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
> > of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
> > you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
> > than one processor, huh?[/color]
> ATM:
> The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis) may
> preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."
>[color=green]
> > I suppose you think the Sony
> > "Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
> > could feel human?[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
> >> ambitious.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
> > you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
> > I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
> > look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
> > too much fibre for me to digest.[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
> >> languages:[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
> > However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
> > C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
> > least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
> > that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
> > being (b)led by the blind.[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [...]
> >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
> >> "Mind.VB #001" link.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
> > even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
> > already has a higher IQ than you.[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
> >> http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
> > and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
> > cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
> > you any day of the week.[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
> >> and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
> > crossover, selection, and mutation?[/color]
> ATM:
> http://www.seedai.e-mind.org tries to track each new species
> of AI Mind. We do _not_ want standard Minds; we only wish
> to have some standards in how we go about coding AI Minds.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> AI has been solved in theory[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
> > illegal, because it's obviously great stuff![/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > and in primitive, free AI source code.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Here is an example of "primitive, free AI source code":[/color]
>[color=green]
> > 10 PRINT "Hello, world!"[/color]
>[color=green]
> > See? It's got a speech generation and emotion engine
> > built right in! And the AI is so reliable, it will never display
> > a bad attitude, even if you tell it to grab you a cold one
> > from the fridge. It always has a cheerful, positive
> > demeanor. It is clearly self-aware, because it addresses
> > others as being distinct from itself. And it has a theory of
> > mind, because it knows that others expect a greeting when
> > meeting for the first time. Unfortunately, it has no memory,
> > so every meeting is for the first time. However, its output
> > is entirely consistent, given this constraint. I guess I've
> > just proved that "AI has been solved in theory"![/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
> >> and proliferate.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > I'm still waiting to see *your* mind germinate. I've watched
> > grass grow faster. While ad homs are usually frowned
> > upon, I don't see any harm when applied to someone who
> > cannot be reasoned with anyway. Since you seem to have
> > single-handedly "solved the AI problem", I'd like to ask
> > you a few questions I (and I'm sure many others) have.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > 1) How does consciousness work?[/color]
> ATM:
> Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is fooled
> into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_ conscious.
>[color=green]
> > 2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
> > that I do? How do we know?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> You've got me there. Qualia totally non-plus me :(
>[color=green]
> > 3) How are long-term memories formed?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes* LTM.
>[color=green]
> > 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract reasoning?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain funding.
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - $send____.
>[color=green]
> > 5) How does language work?[/color]
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U.
>[color=green]
> > 6) How do emotions work?[/color]
>
> ATM:
> By the influence of physiological "storms" upon ratiocination.
>[color=green]
> > Please don't refer me to sections of your site. I've seen
> > enough of your writing to know that the answers to my
> > questions cannot be found there.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
> > misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
> > alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
> > the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
> > claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human[/color]
>
> IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.
>[color=green]
> > brains are collections of specialized problem solvers
> > which must each be understood in considerable detail
> > in order to produce anything remotely intelligent. You
> > never gave a rebuttal, which tells me you don't have one.
> > Why don't you do yourself a favor and start out by
> > reading Society of Mind, by Minsky. After that, read
> > any good neurobiology or neuroscience text to see just
> > how "blank" your brain is when it starts out. Pinker
> > has several good texts you should read. There's a
> > reason why he's a professor at MIT, and you're a
> > crackpot trying to con programmers into fulfilling your
> > ridiculous fantasies.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Dave[/color]
>
> Arthur
> --
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ AI Weblog
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
> http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
> http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth[/color]

"srgrimm" <srgrimm@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3f67c999$0$52125$a0465688@nnrp.fuse.net...[color=blue]
> As long as programming a machine to think remains as a final option for
> artificial intelligence, then, although we may develop some very clever
> machines, they will never aspire to anything more than the program itself.
> Meaning that if real intelligence is to be "acquired", it will not be
> through programming but rather, more likely, through a form of hardware
> development that has the ability to "tap into" what is now considered to[/color]
be[color=blue]
> an ethereal universal consciousness. Only at this level will a machine[/color]
begin[color=blue]
> to compete with a human intelligence and truly have access to knowledge[/color]
and[color=blue]
> virtually unlimited memory.
> We have that ability now, to an extent. However the powerful lure of the
> digital domain to create at will, what we believe should be intelligent,[/color]
is[color=blue]
> nothing more than an elaborate tool that is actually holding us back; both
> technically and philosophically.
> Let's not get too excited about our so called break throughs in
> programming........right direction, wrong tool.
> Steven R. Grimm
> http://biobotics.150m.com
>[/color]
<snip>
This conjecture flies in the face of what is known about neurological
function. Much of the brains functions have been mapped in the last 100
years. The subjects have come from a variety of sources - some are due to
strokes, some from horrendous war wounds, some from brain surgery. IN each
case, a part of the brain in disabled. The researchers has the opportunity
to see what effect this has on cognition. When you tally up the bits and
pieces that have been described, there is little left of consciousness to be
explained.

It is my opinion that it is not necessary to look for "ethereal universal
consciousness" to explain a simple meat machine.

Mark Browne

Mark Browne wrote:[color=blue]
> This conjecture flies in the face of what is known about neurological
> function. Much of the brains functions have been mapped in the last 100
> years. The subjects have come from a variety of sources - some are due to
> strokes, some from horrendous war wounds, some from brain surgery. IN each
> case, a part of the brain in disabled. The researchers has the opportunity
> to see what effect this has on cognition. When you tally up the bits and
> pieces that have been described, there is little left of consciousness to be
> explained.
>
> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to look for "ethereal universal
> consciousness" to explain a simple meat machine.[/color]

Meat machine, or for that matter any other purely biological
explaination for thought, fails to account for choice. If all thought
is simple chemical reactions or neural impulses then there is no way for
you to choose anything, the neural impulses do that for you. That being
the case then how can you be responsible for anything that you do? If,
on the other hand, we can make choices then what gives us that ability?
What allows us to manipulate the neural impulses to fire the way WE
want them to?
[color=blue]
>
> Mark Browne
>
>[/color]

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3F67DE3A.6070101@dontemailme.com...[color=blue]
> Mark Browne wrote:[color=green]
> > This conjecture flies in the face of what is known about neurological
> > function. Much of the brains functions have been mapped in the last 100
> > years. The subjects have come from a variety of sources - some are due[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > strokes, some from horrendous war wounds, some from brain surgery. IN[/color][/color]
each[color=blue][color=green]
> > case, a part of the brain in disabled. The researchers has the[/color][/color]
opportunity[color=blue][color=green]
> > to see what effect this has on cognition. When you tally up the bits and
> > pieces that have been described, there is little left of consciousness[/color][/color]
to be[color=blue][color=green]
> > explained.
> >
> > It is my opinion that it is not necessary to look for "ethereal[/color][/color]
universal[color=blue][color=green]
> > consciousness" to explain a simple meat machine.[/color]
>
> Meat machine, or for that matter any other purely biological
> explaination for thought, fails to account for choice. If all thought
> is simple chemical reactions or neural impulses then there is no way for
> you to choose anything, the neural impulses do that for you. That being
> the case then how can you be responsible for anything that you do? If,
> on the other hand, we can make choices then what gives us that ability?
> What allows us to manipulate the neural impulses to fire the way WE
> want them to?[/color]

This choice question is a common stumbling block for many people.

In you question, you state: "the way WE want them to" without making the
connection that this is how our programs run. We get our programming from
our culture, our learning, and our instincts. This forms our belief systems
and values. Without learned cultures, people are basically animals. There
have been enough cases of feral humans to validate this fact. Our
programming is combined with our short and long term experience to make
judgments and decisions as necessary. Since any two people have different
background they will not necessarily make the same decisions.

I have seen a goodly number of computer programs that are able to follow
their program(s) and captured data to make a choice. The data may be
complicated enough that an outsider is not able to predict the outcome
before the fact. Many games now have good "AI" players that have very rich
behavior, and are not very predictable. This is no theoretical reason that
an AI could not have a rich enough programming to seem to have free will.

As far as the moral question about free will - I consider it to be as
relevant as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" or "What will
an android consciousness feel like?" It has no practical bearing on the
creation of an artificial intelligence.

As far as responsibility and values - this is one of the functions of
culture. There is little that is intrinsic in human morals. Behavior that it
perfectly acceptable in one time and place is not in others. Culture teaches
acceptable behavior and conditions adherence to said behavior.

Mark Browne

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3F67DE3A.6070101@dontemailme.com...[color=blue]
> [...]
> Meat machine, or for that matter any other purely
> biological explaination for thought, fails to account
> for choice.[/color]

You mean "free will". Define a test to detect the presence
of free will in a decision-making agent.
[color=blue]
> If all thought is simple chemical reactions or neural impulses[/color]

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Neither are "simple". If they
were, humans wouldn't appear to be so intelligent.
[color=blue]
> then there is no way for you to choose anything,[/color]

For a suitable definition of "choose", which in this case, means
"freely choose".
[color=blue]
> the neural impulses do that for you.[/color]

Who is this "you", other than the very neural impulses of which
you speak?
[color=blue]
> That being the case then how can you be responsible for
> anything that you do?[/color]

In the sense that you might have chosen differently, you can't
be responsible, since you couldn't have chosen differently.
But that isn't a very useful definition of "responsibility", is it?
If, instead, we define responsibility as: "accepting corrective
action", then it doesn't matter if the decision-making agent
makes free choices or determined ones, does it? The end
result of modifying behaviour towards a more desirable end
is achieved, right? We punish people because we can't do
otherwise. Ponder that.
[color=blue]
> If, on the other hand, we can make choices then what gives
> us that ability? What allows us to manipulate the neural
> impulses to fire the way WE want them to?[/color]

Your Deus ex Machina(R) Neuro-Soul 3000 Control
Panel(TM), of course. Don't you have the latest model?

Dave

"Mark Browne" <markdeb.browne@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZmO9b.368576$Oz4.144662@rwcrnsc54...[color=blue]
>
> The first person to create a full functional Artificial Intelligence
> will have to solve all levels, from the simple low level
> calculation units through the high level organization and
> information coding.[/color]

It depends on what people accept as being "intelligent". I
suspect it is possible to create something that is deemed
intelligent that does not deal with low-level issues like
sensory analysis.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> I have not seen a similar method for organizing the high
> level functionality.[/color]

That's because nobody knows what the high level
functionality looks like in enough detail to design a
complete model.
[color=blue]
> I have read much of what you have published on the
> internet.[/color]

Wow. I must have a low pain tolerance.
[color=blue]
> While I disagree with much of what you are doing,
> your "top level down" approach has given me much
> to think about in my own explorations of cognition.[/color]

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing top-down
thinking about cognition. I *do* think there's something
wrong with claiming that "AI has been solved in theory".
[color=blue]
> Reading through your material has allowed me to gain
> experience with the scope of what is needed, and given
> some insight in what will be required.[/color]

I don't think Mr. Murray gives the half of it. And to that
end, I think his work does more harm than good, because
it possibly deceives people into thinking that intelligence
is much simpler than it really is. I would be quite
embarrassed to be a human if I found out my mind was
as simple as Mr. Murray's ASCII diagrams.
[color=blue]
> Perhaps you are the only person in the field working at
> this level today.[/color]

I seriously doubt it. I strongly suspect that a lot of people
are working on AI and not talking about it. It's a little like
cryptography. There is much more to be gained by not
sharing than by sharing. The first person with a good,
working AI is going to introduce an immense imbalance
of power in the world the likes of which has not been
seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. In an age where
nuclear weapons are merely a posturing tool for nations
that have too much to lose by using them, it is information
that wields true power, and a general-purpose AI is the
ultimate tool for wielding that power. Given all that, it
is simply inconceivable that nobody else is thinking at the
high level, and altogether expected that they wouldn't be
talking about it.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> You have been promoting your ideas for years; selflessly
> sharing your ideas with anyone who would listen.[/color]

I'm not so sure what is so "selfless" about $30/book. Perhaps
you could enlighten me? Note that every post of his in this
group has contained multiple links to his book, or exceprts
of his book. Even the most ruthless Madison Avenue
marketer would blush with shame at this bald-faced ad
campaign.
[color=blue]
> I would like to see you correct some of the difficult
> areas and move forward.[/color]

From where I'm sitting, the "difficult areas" cover 99% of his
"theory". Or did you not read the part where he said that he
thinks most of cognition is memory? Maybe you missed the
irony of the grandmother cell discussion compared to the
numerical indexing of words? Perhaps you were thinking
of contributing to the Perl version of the Sensorium module?
[color=blue]
> Your successes would clearly be everyone's gain.[/color]

No, his "successes" appear to drain $30 from people's wallets.
In the accounting classes I took, that isn't a "gain", although
by Arthur Anderson's "New Accounting" (aka "New Math"),
it could probably be contrived that way.
[color=blue]
> It is easy to criticize; quite another thing to create.[/color]

It is easy to play the piano. It is difficult to play the piano
well. It is easy to paint a picture. It is difficult to paint well.
It is easy to write a story. It is difficult to write a story well.
It is easy to program a computer. It is difficult to program a
computer well. The difference between doing something
and doing it well is knowing when you're *not* doing it well.
For many tasks, it is obvious when that occurs. When it
comes to designing an AI, apparently it is not so obvious.
If Mr. Murray truly is serious about designing an AI *well*,
he had better take heed of the thousands of man-hours of
research that is directly apropos to his work. That will tell
him when his designs are not going *well*. Since he refuses
to "pollute" his mind with other ideas, I am helping him out.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that I'm doing him a service
while at the same time doing him a disservice. Merely by
reading my posts enough to reply to them (to defend his
position and bolster his book sales), he is learning new
things about the state of cognitive science that he obviously
didn't spend the time to learn by buying *someone else's*
book for $30. Of course, the disservice is to try to
persuade other readers that AI4U is a complete waste of
money. But I'm mostly letting Arthur do the dissuading,
and I think he's doing a great job of it.
[color=blue]
> It is very easy for others to nit-pick the things you are
> doing.[/color]

When one is doing so many things wrong, it is not only
easy, but almost compulsive to nitpick.
[color=blue]
> I can only assume that the reason for the criticism is that
> they themselves have solved the problems you are
> examining and are willing to show the better way.[/color]

If I had a better way, I would show it by controlling the
world, just like anyone who had a general-purpose AI.
The real reason for the criticism is to expose Arthur for
the crackpot that he is, in a way that is so painful and
humiliating that he stops spamming the net (including
Usenet) with his drivel. Oh, and it's really fun. I suppose
you think that one cannot criticize unless one has a solution?
Let me dispel that fallacy with a simple illustration. I
don't know the exact population of China, but I can
show that it is not 0. Therefore, if Arthur were to claim
that the population of China is 0, I could criticize the
claim *without knowing the solution*. That's because
it only takes one counterexample to falsify an hypothesis.
It doesn't require a solution.

Arthur himself appreciates the value of criticism. After all,
he has memorized Occam's Razor in the original Latin.
And what is the purpose of Occam's Razor other than to
criticize extravangant theories? Trim the fat. Unfortunately,
despite the high fiber content, when you trim the fat off the
Mentifex pig, you're only left with the ghost of Arthur.
[color=blue]
> I am waiting for them to post alternative methods for
> doing these high level functions, or to suggest alternative
> ways of parsing and grouping the high level functions.[/color]

Well, for one, I don't see any benefit to performing sensory
analysis serially, in a loop. And if one does so for practical
purposes, I don't see the benefit of specifying a particular
order. After all, I'm pretty sure there isn't an ordering
dependency in my brain that I can only smell things after
I've heard something. That is to say, I believe that Arthur
has overspecified operational ordering (wow, that is a
syllable-rich alliteration). Thus, my first recommended
change would be to switch to a stochastic design. Why?
You can find out all about the benefits of stochastic over
synchronous designs in the ANN literature. The digital
nature of synchronous updates can lead to weird
deadlocks and loops and other undesirable artifacts of
simulation. Stochastic update not only avoids such issues,
it also introduces an element of pseudo-randomness that
might be desirable in an entity that is purported to be
"intelligent". After all, we expect intelligent agents to be
original, and by "original", we really mean "random".
[color=blue]
> We are all working for much the same goals, with each
> coming at it from their own directions, and with their
> own motivations. Thank you for making the effort.[/color]

If you appreciate his contribution so much, why don't you
thank him with your wallet? He even provided a link!!

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur T. Murray" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca>
Newsgroups:
bionet.neuroscience,comp.ai.genetic,comp.ai.nat-lang,comp.ai.neural-nets,com
p.lang.c++
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

[color=blue]
> [...]
> Above a few yeastlike "starter" concepts in the English
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html bootstrap,
> each AI Mind species dynamically assigns a numeric
> "nen" (for English) number on the fly to each learned
> concept.[/color]

As far as I can tell, the indexes are an implementation
detail that have no relevance to AIs or minds. It is a lot
like specifying a high-level design for a 747 and throwing
in that the seats must be blue with a red stripe down the
middle.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Normally it would be cheeky and presumptuous for an
> AI parvenu and arriviste like myself to make bold to
> proclaim a white paper of "Standards in Artificial
> Intelligence,"[/color]

Yes, considering that standards are usually drawn up for
entities which already exist.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Sometimes I wonder if people, especially students,
> who see the Mentifex AI Mind diagrams, simply assume
> that the depicted layouts are part of the general
> background of neuroscience and cognitive science,[/color]

Don't worry. Students who are that stupid have to
wear helmets and ride the short bus to school.
[color=blue]
> without realizing how original the diagrams are.[/color]

Original != useful.
[color=blue]
> There must eventually be some quite authoritative
> diagrammatic depictions of how the brain-mind is
> organized with respect to information-flow, so
> we shall see if the 35 AI4U diagrams were right.[/color]

Actually, there are. Try looking at any neurophysiology
text to see some from your very own...err...from the
brains of your fellow humans. Of all the ones I've
seen, none remotely resemble your ASCII diagrams.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Logic dictates that the most important thing about neurons
> is how elongated they are. If neurons were all punctiform
> cells like an amoeba, there would be no long-distance
> transmission of signals and there would be no diachronic
> persistence of conceptual ideas.[/color]

LOL!!! So I suppose the number of dendrites or synapses
or the configuration of local connections are all just
irrelevant details compared to "axon length". While signal
transmission is very important, the axon is, perhaps, the
least interesting part of the neuron. The soma performs
computation by summing the inputs. The dendrites store
information in the synapses. The axon is essentially a
connecting wire. It is very much like you looking at a
circuit diagram, completely ignoring the logic gates and
flip-flops, and pointing at the longest wire on the page
and exclaiming:

"There! Right there!! Do you see it? That's the
essential feature of this circuit! If that wire were
any shorter, none of this would be possible!!!"
[color=blue]
> That is to say, the "longness" of neuronal fibers, each
> tagged with as many as ten thousand associative tags
> to other concepts, allows a concept to be embodied
> in one or more (redundant) fibers.[/color]

Yes, but this is very brittle. How do you know that your
fibers will support an appropriate number of connections
for each concept? It doesn't scale. That's the problem
with local representations. They are brittle. If you used
a distributed representation, you could end up with
robustness and scalability. Check out Rumelhart and
McClellan for a primer on the essential features of a
distributed architecture, and learn what "parallel" and
"distributed processing" really mean.
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Yes, but where would the novice get such a system if not
> from AI4U?[/color]

LOL!!!! Wow! Move over Chris Rock! Move over
Dennis Miller! Our next act is the most clueless crackpot
on Usenet! Introducing the ever-funny Arthur T. Murray!!!
[color=blue]
> Right here and now I would humbly like to ask paper-
> writers and book-authors to cite the AI4U mind-diagrams
> and germane ideas in their forthcoming publications so as
> to spread the thoery of mind,[/color]

LOL!! You would have to PAY me to cite any of your
work, even to *disprove* it, in a publication! And for a
beggar, you don't seem to be in a position to do that.
[color=blue]
> with adjustments and even refutations where necessary.
> I give blanket permission for anyone anywhere to
> reproduce the diagrams and to re-fashion them into line-
> art far prettier than ASCII.[/color]

"...because I'm too lazy and inept to do it myself." That
was foolish of you. You should have also given yourself
permission to use any such modification for future editions
of your book!
[color=blue]
> [...]
> Why not? You could make whatever changes you saw
> as needed, and then your resulting AI would be a brand
> new Mind species.[/color]

Because the Mentifex model is horribly wrong on just
about every single feature. I don't know what you call
that, but I call it "useless". I intend to build a pure-play
neural network design that somehow magically solves
what I call the "binding problem", but could also be
thought of as the "instance problem". This is really the
major stumbling block that prevents neural networks
from performing general-purpose computation. I have
some ideas on how the issue can be addressed, but I'm
certainly not going to talk about them until I've had a
go at it myself. Unfortunately, I'm not clever enough
to write a junk science book, so I earn my money
the hard way, and don't have as much time to code
as I'd like.

However, if you manage to con a lot of people into
funding your work, and you want to how I would build
an AI, you could certainly fund *my* project to find
out. ;) I actually have a pretty good plan for building
an AI that doesn't require radical new technology,
builds on lessons learned from symbolic AI and ANNs,
takes cues from the latest neuroscience research,
and makes no overarching assumptions about how
the brain really works (well maybe a few, but they
are all grounded in observation and experiment). Oh,
and it can all be implemented in C++. ;> The problem
is, a large number of people could actually implement
my plan themselves, which is exactly what I *don't*
want to happen, because I want to control the
technology *myself*. Maybe that sounds selfish,
but I'll just blame it on my genes. Or maybe it just
means I'm cynical, and if AI leads to Big Brother, I
want to be sure that *I'm* Big Brother. ;>

Dave

"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bk96b8$od$1@news.astound.net...
<snip>[color=blue]
> I seriously doubt it. I strongly suspect that a lot of people
> are working on AI and not talking about it. It's a little like
> cryptography. There is much more to be gained by not
> sharing than by sharing. The first person with a good,
> working AI is going to introduce an immense imbalance
> of power in the world the likes of which has not been
> seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. In an age where
> nuclear weapons are merely a posturing tool for nations
> that have too much to lose by using them, it is information
> that wields true power, and a general-purpose AI is the
> ultimate tool for wielding that power. Given all that, it
> is simply inconceivable that nobody else is thinking at the
> high level, and altogether expected that they wouldn't be
> talking about it.
>[/color]
<snip>

And I thought I was the only person in the world following the "frantic mad
scientist in the cellar" approach!
Sigh.

Assuming you are correct - there is a horde of tinkerers chasing the goal of
functional AI (well, now I know it is at least 2), how much faster it would
go if we worked together.

On the other hand, considering that I can't trust you to do the right thing,
I best keep my work to myself.

Mark Browne

"David B. Held" wrote:
....[color=blue]
> ... I intend to build a pure-play
> neural network design that somehow magically solves
> what I call the "binding problem", but could also be
> thought of as the "instance problem". This is really the
> major stumbling block that prevents neural networks
> from performing general-purpose computation. I have
> some ideas on how the issue can be addressed, but I'm
> certainly not going to talk about them until I've had a
> go at it myself. ...[/color]

You may be interested in some of the work done at Berkeley
on binding through temporal synchrony (e.g., SHRUTI at
http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~shastri/shruti/ ). There are
probably some other sites that talk about this as well.

--
Carl Burke
cburke@mitre.org

uj797@victoria.tc.ca (Arthur T. Murray) writes:
[color=blue]
> A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence is at
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html -- updated today.[/color]

How about using a mailing list where everyone interested in your
website can subscribe and is informed about your frequent updates?

If everybody posted their update notifications through usenet the news
servers would immediately break down from overload. So please be
polite and use the appropriate channels to communicate with the
readers of your website.

I'm reading this thread only sporadically, but,
though I've not the entire context, the David's
thoughts deserve comment.

"Mark Browne" <markdeb.browne@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vzY9b.484627$Ho3.82138@sccrnsc03...
|
| "David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
| news:bk96b8$od$1@news.astound.net...
| <snip>
| > [...]
| > The first person with a good,
| > working AI is going to introduce
| > an immense imbalance of power
| > in the world the likes of which has
| > not been seen since the dawn of
| > the nuclear age.

And, unless, folks come to comprehend
how nervous systems process information,
'ai' will [continue to] be ab-used.

The danger is that folks'll abdicate thought
to machines in a way that folks abdicated
thought to spreadsheets during the stock
market bubble [the result being 'Enron', etc.,
and misery all around].

This's the same mis-take that was made
with respect to so-called "nuclear" phen-
omena.

Everyone working on 'shaking the biggest
stick' they can come up with, rather than
expending less than the same quantity of
energy working to actually communicate
mutual understanding to one another, through
which actual progress can be accomplished.

It's the biggest short-coming of generalized
use of computational machines - this off-
loading of thought.

It's 'funny' - folks taking their good "wetware",
and abdicating its functionality to rocks [literally],
and 'wondering' why the general mess only gets
worse.

With respect to =real= AI, I'm not worrired. Real
AI will, necessarily, 'recognize', and 'bow' to, '2nd
Thermo'.

It's the stuff engineered by folks who remain
'blind' to '2nd Thermo', in the same way that
they're 'blind' to it it themselves, that is
dangerous.

It's them who see it as the font of 'power' that
you addressed in your post.

"Long bow defeats mounted armour".

Same-old, same-old, visciously-inwardly-
spiralling decrementing of Freedom to 'move',
ad terminus.

Rending Humanity apart.

'Just' the inverse of what's right-there, in
each person to hope for:

Freedom.

ken [k. p. collins]

| >
| <snip>
| [...]

"Mark Browne" <markdeb.browne@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vzY9b.484627$Ho3.82138@sccrnsc03...[color=blue]
> [...]
> And I thought I was the only person in the world following
> the "frantic mad scientist in the cellar" approach!
> Sigh.
>
> Assuming you are correct - there is a horde of tinkerers
> chasing the goal of functional AI (well, now I know it is at
> least 2), how much faster it would go if we worked together.[/color]

Heh. There almost certainly is a horde of tinkerers, but they
aren't the real threat. The real threat is the corporations and
gov't agencies that actually have money to fund projects
privately. Look at AI in the 80's. Sure, there was a lot of
hype and a lot of broken promises. But there was also a lot
of projects which had interesting and commercially useful
results, which were not widely publicized, because even
knowledge of the results would constitute a competitive
advantage. Companies like Symbolics died at least partly
because their clients had a vested interest in *not* saying
how well their products worked. And now, AI has been
balkanized into a bunch of disorganized factions at the few
schools still willing to study it, and a bunch of "independent
scholars" trying whatever they can. Everyone has their own
idea on how to do AI, and since nobody has succeeded in
building one, nobody can say that anyone else's approach
is unreasonable (except within some reasonable bounds,
which Mr. Murray has clearly crossed).

Of course, part of the problem is a matter of scale. People
who are actually publishing advances in cognitive science
are doing good work and addressing individual systems,
but since nobody knows how to put all those systems
together into a unified whole, it looks like AI isn't going
anywhere, but it is. It's just that there's a threshold of
knowledge and complexity that must be crossed before
all of this research becomes useful. And frankly, that's a
compliment to the human brain, which AI researchers can
sometimes take for granted.

But to be honest with you, I suspect that some of the best
researchers *aren't* publishing, and that's because they're
paid to keep their results to themselves.
[color=blue]
> On the other hand, considering that I can't trust you to
> do the right thing, I best keep my work to myself.[/color]

That's probably the safest thing to do. Do you wonder
why violence still exists? It's not because of "society".
It's not even because of biology. Frankly, in a game-
theoretic way, violence exists because it's a successful
strategy for a self-replicating agent. What that means is
that as long as people attempt to reproduce in *some*
way, they will compete; and some of those techniques
will include harm to others. While cooperation brings
its own set of advantages, a few cheaters prosper most
in a cooperative environment. Look at Kenneth Lay.
Investors cooperate to raise the share price, one well-
placed cheater cashes in. I'm not going to be the one
left holding worthless stock certificates. Especially not
with so many known cheaters in the world.

Dave

Mark Browne wrote:
[color=blue]
> When you tally up the bits and pieces that have been described,
> there is little left of consciousness to be explained.[/color]

Actually, "What causes consciousness" is one of the great unanswered
questions in the field. A recent issue of SciAm had the human brain
and mind as its theme. The introductory article has this quote:

"Left largely untouched was one of science's grand challenges,
ranking in magnitude with cosmologists' dream of finding a
way to snap together all the fundamental physical forces:
WE ARE STILL NOWHERE NEAR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF
CONSCIOUSNESS. Getting there might require another century,
and some neuroscientists and philosophers believe that
comprehension of what makes you you MAY ALWAYS REMAIN UNKNOWABLE.
Pictures abound showing yellow and orange splotches against a
background of gray matter--a snapshot of where the lightbulb
goes on when you move a finger, feel sad, or add two and two.
These pictures reveal which areas receive increased oxygen-rich
blood flow. But despite pretensions to latter-day phrenology,
they remain an abstraction, an imperfect bridge from brain to
mind."

(Emphasis mine)

--
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|

"Carl Burke" <cburke@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3F687AD4.E658710@mitre.org...[color=blue]
> [...]
> You may be interested in some of the work done at
> Berkeley on binding through temporal synchrony (e.g.,
> SHRUTI at http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~shastri/shruti/ ).
> There are probably some other sites that talk about this
> as well.[/color]

That is indeed very interesting. I don't know how much to
infer from the demo diagrams, but it appears to me that
the SHRUTI team is using a local representation (which is
quite understandable for a first go). If so, that begins to
address the problem I refer to, but not really. Suppose we
scale up the SHRUTI problem to a distributed
representation, where all the objects are now stored in the
same network. How does reasoning proceed then? Mere
synchrony is not going to be useful, because some of the
patterns you wish to associate simply can't be activated
at the same time. Even if you argue against putting *all*
the object patterns in the same network, you are still going
to want *some* patterns to be distributed over the same
units, and whenever you need to reason about two or
more of those patterns at once, you have a problem.
Namely, the obvious lack of variables in neural network
architecture. Nonetheless, that is an interesting link.
Thanks for bringing it up.

Dave

"Programmer Dude" <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
news:3F689CB9.5CC9A82D@Sonnack.com...[color=blue]
> Mark Browne wrote:
>[color=green]
> > When you tally up the bits and pieces that have been
> > described, there is little left of consciousness to be
> > explained.[/color]
>
> Actually, "What causes consciousness" is one of the
> great unanswered questions in the field. A recent issue
> of SciAm had the human brain and mind as its theme.
> [...][/color]

While I feel Mr. Browne's prognosis is a bit optimistic, I
think the SA article goes a bit far in the other direction
(though that is entirely expected). If you are interested in
reading about some of the latest ideas in consciousness
research, I really recommend "The Feeling of What
Happens", by Antonio Damasio. It's not a sufficiently
detailed model to go out and build an AI right now, but
I think he really makes some important points that
serious AI researchers need to consider. And the idea
must be catching on, because Marvin Minsky is also
working on his own book on emotion.

Dave

"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> "Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
> news:3F67DE3A.6070101@dontemailme.com...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If all thought is simple chemical reactions or neural impulses[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Neither are "simple". If they
> were, humans wouldn't appear to be so intelligent.[/color]

Maybe we don't? Perhaps we're just too dumb to see through our own
stupidity? :-)

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Programmer Dude wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Mark Browne wrote:
>[color=green]
> > When you tally up the bits and pieces that have been described,
> > there is little left of consciousness to be explained.[/color]
>
> Actually, "What causes consciousness" is one of the great unanswered
> questions in the field. A recent issue of SciAm had the human brain
> and mind as its theme. The introductory article has this quote:
>
> "Left largely untouched was one of science's grand challenges,
> ranking in magnitude with cosmologists' dream of finding a
> way to snap together all the fundamental physical forces:
> WE ARE STILL NOWHERE NEAR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF
> CONSCIOUSNESS. Getting there might require another century,
> and some neuroscientists and philosophers believe that
> comprehension of what makes you you MAY ALWAYS REMAIN UNKNOWABLE.
> Pictures abound showing yellow and orange splotches against a
> background of gray matter--a snapshot of where the lightbulb
> goes on when you move a finger, feel sad, or add two and two.
> These pictures reveal which areas receive increased oxygen-rich
> blood flow. But despite pretensions to latter-day phrenology,
> they remain an abstraction, an imperfect bridge from brain to
> mind."
>
> (Emphasis mine)
>
> --
> |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
> |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
> |_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|[/color]

Or there is Kaekel's Conjecture
Any system of neural organization sufficiently complicated to
generate the axioms of arithmetic is too complex to understand
itself.

--
$87 billion for Iraq.
Not one cent for Appalachia.
apologies to T Jefferson

"David B. Held" wrote:
[color=blue]
> If you are interested in reading about some of the latest ideas
> in consciousness research, I really recommend "The Feeling of
> What Happens", by Antonio Damasio.[/color]

I *am* interested, so thanks for the reference!

--
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can
be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is
bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the
wrod as a wlohe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Something for fellow AI bums to think about ...

How does "your" proposed AI handle this?

Mark Browne

That is a great thing for people like me who frequently mis-spell words!

"Mark Browne" <markdeb.browne@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XM5cb.138478$mp.68708@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.n et...[color=blue]
> Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
> in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
> taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can
> be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is
> bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the
> wrod as a wlohe.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color]
--[color=blue]
> ----------------
> Something for fellow AI bums to think about ...
>
> How does "your" proposed AI handle this?
>
> Mark Browne
>
>[/color]

Mark Browne wrote:
[color=blue]
> Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
> in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
> taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can
> be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is
> bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the
> wrod as a wlohe.[/color]

Teachers leverage this effect with "whole word" reading.
[color=blue]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color]
--
[color=blue]
> Something for fellow AI bums to think about ...
>
> How does "your" proposed AI handle this?[/color]

Uh, by matching whole patterns?

Don't reduce the shapes of words (via OCR) to a lower-dimension format, such
as ASCII.

Start the AI right at the raw scan of the words; their outer shape.

Don't reduce dimension count as a naive convenience.

--
Phlip
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces

"Mark Browne" <markdeb.browne@comcast.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
> in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is[/color]

Indeed. In particular, I find that if I try to read it as fast as
possible, I actually have less of a problem understanding it than if I
read it more carefully (obviously because I don't get time to notice
the errors, which would sort of break my stride)

The harder thing is, of course, to touch type the permutations. :-)

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Ketil Malde wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Mark Browne" <markdeb.browne@comcast.net> writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
>>in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is[/color]
>
>
> Indeed. In particular, I find that if I try to read it as fast as
> possible, I actually have less of a problem understanding it than if I
> read it more carefully (obviously because I don't get time to notice
> the errors, which would sort of break my stride)
>
> The harder thing is, of course, to touch type the permutations. :-)[/color]

Not at all!

In particular, swapping pairs of letters is probably second nature for
anyone used to touch typing, in particular when the letters occur on
alternate hands. (I just noticed that I did exactly that kind of error
with 'alterante', so I had to fix it afterwards.)

Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> In particular, swapping pairs of letters is probably second nature for
> anyone used to touch typing, in particular when the letters occur on
> alternate hands.[/color]

My most common mistake is typing length as 'lenght'. I'm sure you can
see why.
[color=blue]
> (I just noticed that I did exactly that kind of error
> with 'alterante', so I had to fix it afterwards.)[/color]

Well, thanks to the good news from Cabdegimre, you no longer have
to. :-)

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Mark Browne wrote:
[color=blue]
> Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,[/color]

Old research. Newer research tend to believe the first things you
"perceive" are groups of two letters, the ones with short inter-letter
distances being the more important ones (and the ones that include
the first or last letter being the most important ones of that set).

That explains why you *can* discriminate between anagrams that have the
same first and last letters - which the simple theory cannot explain
(the simple theory tended to believe that you discriminate between
anagrams using context, or by reading letter combinations that map
to more than one word slowly, letter per letter, using an alternate
mechanism -- but experiments designed to examine this tend to invalidate
those views: you seem to be able to see the difference between two valid
anagrams like the Dutch "brood" and "boord" -- at least if you're Dutch-
speaking).

I.e. you may be reading "read" by perceiving all of
re ad ea r-a e-d r--d and combining all these snippets of information.

In article <3F715CE4.50408@brussels.sgi.com>,
Alexis Cousein <al@brussels.sgi.com> writes:
|> Mark Browne wrote:
|>
|> > Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
|>
|> Old research. Newer research tend to believe the first things you
|> "perceive" are groups of two letters, the ones with short inter-letter
|> distances being the more important ones (and the ones that include
|> the first or last letter being the most important ones of that set).

I don't know whether the researchers have officially found it yet,
but it is also very dependent on the person and even changes as
people age. I am 99% certain that very fast readers use different
recognition mechanisms than slow ones even at that level.

One of the more common differences among native English readers is
the ability to recognise ie/ei transpositions; some people are good
at it, but others can't see the difference even after it is pointed
out (without spelling out letter by letter). I have no evidence,
but suspect that native German readers would be better on average.

My personal one is ia/ai, mainly in diary/dairy, which I find very
hard to see.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:[color=blue]
> I don't know whether the researchers have officially found it yet,
> but it is also very dependent on the person and even changes as
> people age. I am 99% certain that very fast readers use different
> recognition mechanisms than slow ones even at that level.
>[/color]
Obivously -- the research I was talking about is talking about "fast"
reading.

On 24 Sep 2003 10:15:33 +0200, "Ketil Malde" <ketil+@ii.uib.no> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> In particular, swapping pairs of letters is probably second nature for
>> anyone used to touch typing, in particular when the letters occur on
>> alternate hands.[/color]
>
>My most common mistake is typing length as 'lenght'. I'm sure you can
>see why.
>[color=green]
>> (I just noticed that I did exactly that kind of error
>> with 'alterante', so I had to fix it afterwards.)[/color]
>
>Well, thanks to the good news from Cabdegimre, you no longer have
>to. :-)
>[/color]
Terje would let himself off the hook on a requirement for 100%
accuracy based on research from some school in the UK? Not likely.

RM

Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

Similar C / C++ bytes

/bytes/development

/bytes/it

/bytes/about