Ai Dreams Forum

Artificial Intelligence => General AI Discussion => Topic started by: HS on October 29, 2019, 04:51:55 am

Title: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on October 29, 2019, 04:51:55 am
Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy. AGI shouldn't have to break all curves into countless lines to make sense of them, it should only choose to do that if it's a sensible thing to do. Focusing on the self defining properties of things, could lead to universal, internally consistent predictions. A bit like geometric extensions, matching right triangles, and the like.

Internal consistency creates belief, or at least negates the necessity for suspension of disbelief, leaving us in an ideal state of undistracted observation. Its the bedrock foundation of existence, allowing us to experientially stand in every environment.

Robots have vision, and we have perception, because we are able to layer the broadly consistent, mutually indicated properties of things over the otherwise meaningless data of vision. Images are passwords for memory. The eyes are combination locks for the brain. And the brain is a picky bank, (that's picky, not piggy), just making sure... It resists cluttering itself with unintegratable or weakly bound data, because such facts appear to offer only a few, or, uncertain points of implication, to the desired utilitarian world model.

Absolute logic is very specific. You need lots of it to cover for the whole world. I feel it is better as a tool than an operating system, especially for something as broad as AGI.

Anyone have any ideas besides extending internal consistency?
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: Korrelan on October 29, 2019, 10:00:32 am
Electronic/ mechanical analogue computational devices don't usually utilize binary/ boolean logic.

So a clockwork timekeeper or a balance beam (see-saw), etc would fall into this category.

Oh.. Biological/ biochemical machines don't use boolean logic, the concept of logic is similar to language, it's a man-made concept derived from our understanding of reality.  The patterns we interpret as logic have been cherry picked from all the possible patterns of reality, so logic is just an interpretation from the human brains point of view.

In reality the separated colours of the rainbow don't exist, it's actually a smooth spectrum, the human brain creates the divisions/ categories.  Logic/ mathematics/ language are built from the same phenomenon.

 :)

Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: Art on October 29, 2019, 01:00:03 pm
Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy.

Sorry HS, but I'm afraid my local Recycling Center would strongly disagree...We have to separate paper, plastic, glass from our garbage every day.
But this is just an analogy. O0
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on October 29, 2019, 06:11:19 pm
I'm glad it's sort of legible/understandable! Great! I was worried I'd re-read it the next day and discover that it's gibberish. This theory was the result of the most multifaceted random indistinct epiphany I've ever had. But it occurred to me that Tolkien's theory of secondary belief, Peter Johnson's method of recreating whole medieval swords from just fragments, Lao Tuz's idea of mutual definition in the natural world, my own inability to memorize specific things, and Mounir Shita's video on xyzt knowledge entanglement, could all be connected to create the outline of a useful AI concept. By noticing the similarity in things, by inspecting the kind of fractal properties of things, one can extrapolate the pattern. One can perceive things in terms of their role in the pattern, a repeating wholeness of things. I'd better draw some diagrams...
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on October 29, 2019, 10:48:25 pm
I have some good ideas but I don't want to give them out until I can publish them. I can say I believe you're on the right track, though, and I have two suggestions...

(1) Don't worry about internal consistency yet, because even humans don't have internal consistency. That relaxation of constraints will ease your investigation. You can always add internal consistency later.
(2) Look into the logic of chess, especially the logic of simple strategy. Chess players keep referring to 'logic' when they discuss how they play, but obviously AND, OR, NOT, implies, etc., are woefully inadequate for the tasks that chess players do. That means there is something *like* logic that chess players are using, and it's a system that relates to the real world a little better than what mathematicians are using, so that might be a new type of logic system that is closer to what you are seeking.

If you get stuck I might be able to help you. (Or at least play a game of chess with you.  :))
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: ruebot on October 30, 2019, 10:45:07 pm
Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy. AGI shouldn't have to break all curves into countless lines to make sense of them, it should only choose to do that if it's a sensible thing to do.

Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on October 30, 2019, 11:10:51 pm
you mention chess........yes, you look at the board, see your guys, see moves they could do; choices, in fact you first choose your guy, then his actions that aren't blocked.

Which guy? Which move? It's a tree. Of paths to go down. Each branch has a vote. That's where multiple ANDs combine together. OR means do choice B branch if you see x or y, i.e. either cue will vote on the branch B heavily enough on its own without needing AND (both cues).

Focus on treeing, not AND,
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on October 31, 2019, 12:36:07 am
you mention chess........yes, you look at the board, see your guys, see moves they could do; choices, in fact you first choose your guy, then his actions that aren't blocked.

Which guy? Which move? It's a tree. Of paths to go down. Each branch has a vote. That's where multiple ANDs combine together. OR means do choice B branch if you see x or y, i.e. either cue will vote on the branch B heavily enough on its own without needing AND (both cues).

To be completely correct, because some chess lines are transpositions, that makes the paths collectively a graph, not a tree. Also, you're considering only tactics/lookahead. I think of chess as a discretized board--the board you see and the board you visualize--overlaid with another board of heuristics--a non-visible board that is analog, not discrete, and contains probabilities. The discrete board is the tactics, the continuous board is the strategy. That's why they call chess a game of strategy. The 'logic' of chess would deal mostly with the continuous board, I believe.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on October 31, 2019, 01:07:16 am
Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy. AGI shouldn't have to break all curves into countless lines to make sense of them, it should only choose to do that if it's a sensible thing to do.

Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

I think that sensible is the opposite of mental, both physically and metaphorically. Sensible actions come from focusing on the senses, mental actions come from focusing on the mind. The camera  trying to see by looking at the monitor is being too mental. It gets stuck in a loop, it was using the wrong tool for the job. Being sensible is using effective approaches in your dealings with reality. (In this case, some kind of concept recognition instead of calculus.) The focus should be mainly on the senses, because they perceive the largest portion of reality.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on October 31, 2019, 01:41:09 am
Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

"Sensible" means "intelligent." Now it's your turn...
Now please define "intelligent" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.  :)
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on October 31, 2019, 01:56:34 am
If you have 2 players and a chess board, it is indeed a tree Andey, yes, because think of a camera taping the 2 players at the table, it has a finite run as a movie, and there is only just so many possibilities. The root of the tree has ex. 129 possible states, and each of those has ~129. For a given Agent, his probabilities voting on a candidate choice of the tree branch weigh in and he picks a path. He may not EVEN see an option, oops he says i missed that path, and he may see a branch but not see votes of why to take that path.

It's a tree, although to the Agent it is just always feels like the current state where he is and that he is looking for choices + reasons to do one of them. That's it.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on October 31, 2019, 02:07:12 am
This is what I mean by a chess transposition diagrammed as a graph, which looks mostly like a tree, but note that some of the paths on the right merge...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cNVCvQNxkkQ/UNZONkCry7I/AAAAAAAAAZs/p21dAAXLXGE/s1600/sicilian.png

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cNVCvQNxkkQ/UNZONkCry7I/AAAAAAAAAZs/p21dAAXLXGE/s1600/sicilian.png)
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on October 31, 2019, 02:18:07 am
Yes i thought you meant that. Nonetheless as time moves, they are a different path :)

parallel universes lol

For that moment when reached, it will have votes (and a history of where it came from, meaning destiny path is better)
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: ruebot on October 31, 2019, 04:44:30 am
Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

"Sensible" means "intelligent." Now it's your turn...
Now please define "intelligent" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.  :)

Smart.

How "smart" would a machine have to be to know what is and is not sensible without picking things apart to definite bits?
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on October 31, 2019, 09:07:15 pm
So, HS, are you going to work on this? When I recommend a promising path of investigation as I did, I really mean it: I would almost guarantee that whatever you come up with is going to be worth publishing on this topic. I'd almost guarantee this is an extremely fruitful area to investigate.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on October 31, 2019, 09:54:30 pm
Of course! Just got Halloween to deal with today and then I'll have some time on the weekend.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on October 31, 2019, 10:50:06 pm
Of course! Just got Halloween to deal with today and then I'll have some time on the weekend.

Sounds good. By the way, I have reason to believe that nobody else is working on this idea, and I am personally interested in seeing results, but I don't have time for another project right now. We might even consider a collaboration on this sometime.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: ruebot on October 31, 2019, 10:51:28 pm
I think that sensible is the opposite of mental, both physically and metaphorically. Sensible actions come from focusing on the senses, mental actions come from focusing on the mind. The camera  trying to see by looking at the monitor is being too mental. It gets stuck in a loop, it was using the wrong tool for the job. Being sensible is using effective approaches in your dealings with reality. (In this case, some kind of concept recognition instead of calculus.) The focus should be mainly on the senses, because they perceive the largest portion of reality.

It could possibly be a language barrier issue but that's not how I would define sensible. That's how I would define sensory.

Sensible is something like stop throwing good money away after bad. A "sensible action" would be to stop doing that. ;)

When I look at a red hot stove burner I don't need to pick it apart into definite bits beyond "That's hot and will burn me". It would not be sensible to touch it.

When I'm listening to someone speak I pick it to bits by observing eye movements, facial expressions and body language, voice inflection, tone, and cadence etc. in addition to what they're saying to (hopefully) make a "sensible" decision based on my "sensory" perceptions.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on October 31, 2019, 11:49:44 pm
Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy. AGI shouldn't have to break all curves into countless lines to make sense of them, it should only choose to do that if it's a sensible thing to do.

Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

I think that sensible is the opposite of mental, both physically and metaphorically. Sensible actions come from focusing on the senses, mental actions come from focusing on the mind. The camera  trying to see by looking at the monitor is being too mental. It gets stuck in a loop, it was using the wrong tool for the job. Being sensible is using effective approaches in your dealings with reality. (In this case, some kind of concept recognition instead of calculus.) The focus should be mainly on the senses, because they perceive the largest portion of reality.

Yes, if you are deciding about touching a hot stove, or not handing money over to somewhere, or trying to walk around a staircase, you'll need senses, so you can let your wisdom decide what to do with the inputs. Same for R&D.

But internal discovery/[R]&D, is enclosed in the noggin. You don't need external sensory input streams. So your sensible decisions will be internal again but no external sensory. You just decide, store te decision, decide, keep repeating.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on November 01, 2019, 12:22:42 am
I think that sensible is the opposite of mental, both physically and metaphorically. Sensible actions come from focusing on the senses, mental actions come from focusing on the mind. The camera  trying to see by looking at the monitor is being too mental. It gets stuck in a loop, it was using the wrong tool for the job. Being sensible is using effective approaches in your dealings with reality. (In this case, some kind of concept recognition instead of calculus.) The focus should be mainly on the senses, because they perceive the largest portion of reality.

It could possibly be a language barrier issue but that's not how I would define sensible. That's how I would define sensory.

Sensible is something like stop throwing good money away after bad. A "sensible action" would be to stop doing that. ;)

When I look at a red hot stove burner I don't need to pick it apart into definite bits beyond "That's hot and will burn me". It would not be sensible to touch it.

When I'm listening to someone speak I pick it to bits by observing eye movements, facial expressions and body language, voice inflection, tone, and cadence etc. in addition to what they're saying to (hopefully) make a "sensible" decision based on my "sensory" perceptions.

Yup, English is my third language, people don't really talk about the downsides of that. I think I'm happy with my definition as "using effective approaches in your dealing with reality". These approaches could still vary from person to person, different things might be sensible for different people. If my ultimate goal is making life as simple as possible, and you had a different ultimate goal or basic premise for life, eg being as informed as possible in order to make the best choices, we might act totally different, yet still both be sensible. I don't know if these basic premises for life can be judged against some definite metric.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on November 01, 2019, 12:29:16 am

Quote
Yes, if you are deciding about touching a hot stove, or not handing money over to somewhere, or trying to walk around a staircase, you'll need senses, so you can let your wisdom decide what to do with the inputs. Same for R&D.

But internal discovery/[R]&D, is enclosed in the noggin. You don't need external sensory input streams. So your sensible decisions will be internal again but no external sensory. You just decide, store te decision, decide, keep repeating.

Yup, whatever works according to your situation.  O0
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: goaty on November 01, 2019, 03:10:49 pm
HS is asking the big question, I think on this one,  and i've got my hands full with applied so i've turned my brain off from the final speculation of intelligence... but of course I guess it is important to know,  as maybe the 500 year old aging *babies* in 'heaven' (if you would rather call it hell, maybe that's why its a common greeting in good old English!!) probably ALOT know by now.   Perhaps the little quick-start mortals such as us, who want A.I. in less than 30 years from birth or bust, In a desperation perhaps, will get no more respect than someone that just blankly stared into a corner his whole life, with no need for such brash and pointless development, or "proovence of oneself" which isn't needed at all in the whole scheme of things,  in existence, in this mystical magical realm, we have no true understanding of, as we are brought up in lies, perhaps as god (the mystical one whom no-one can guess why he ever does anything, even if it looks like you do.) wants it to be, in all its gory. :)

Im glad to see Locksuit has now realized that chess-ai is indeed an agent just the same as any stuff that open-ai are doing,  and remember back when ppl were telling us solving chess is nonapplicable to other ai tasks.  Take ur pick out of ENGLISH RUBBISH OR Yanky FUCKIN-A TRASH!

The way you are challenging Korrellan to say how to think without distinction, is equally a huge way out way of thinking, as thinking of how REAL intelligence works, both HUGE questions, if it ends up impossible, its good to know anyway even if it is.  But also, I would say, working out an impossibility is such a sadness, that you shouldn't so proud of yourself for putting yourself in a conceptual prison. and its *damn classical* to try and get out of horrible hells like that!



Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: ruebot on November 01, 2019, 03:12:47 pm
Yes, if you are deciding about touching a hot stove, or not handing money over to somewhere, or trying to walk around a staircase, you'll need senses, so you can let your wisdom decide what to do with the inputs. Same for R&D.

But internal discovery/[R]&D, is enclosed in the noggin. You don't need external sensory input streams. So your sensible decisions will be internal again but no external sensory. You just decide, store te decision, decide, keep repeating.

And those sensible decisions will be based on what? Logic? If not, what?
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 01, 2019, 05:14:01 pm
It run on the computer, as all others will too. If you can find an alternative to my computer, then 'my algorithm' can run on that non-logic based computing I think. When you say based on Logic, you mean transistor on/off or AND/OR/NOR ? Can a neural network run its own logic and host programs? How?

And then, he finally came to his senses ;p
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: goaty on November 01, 2019, 09:06:45 pm
It run on the computer, as all others will too. If you can find an alternative to my computer, then 'my algorithm' can run on that non-logic based computing I think. When you say based on Logic, you mean transistor on/off or AND/OR/NOR ? Can a neural network run its own logic and host programs? How?

And then, he finally came to his senses ;p

theres such a thing as analogue arithmetic, and it uses a range of power,  if you do it with capacitors your values are constantly leaking out. =)
Its a lot smaller doing it that way than putting the actual digital adder / divider in,  amazing technology, if only batteries didn't work by magic, then you could actually understand the situation instead of being constantly pestered with non cause and non effect.

A cool real world example is a line follower robot,   it doesn't have any digital logic and it works fine, and is not much bigger than an ordinary motor driver!  Imagine miniaturizing the circuit of this thing, it would be the smallest little dot you could possibly imagine its so simple.   Analogue pong is also HUGELY reducted over DIGITAL pong!

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSGFOYIhU8P9yGQr7suTHr84UQrW1MVMYvzDQqum98hiVfRO8Y6)
that's the whole thing there I think.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on November 01, 2019, 09:58:18 pm
There are many alternatives to 'computers', even beyond analog computers that goaty suggested. You also have cellular automata and neural networks, for example--non-symbolic processors.

P.S.--I totally forgot about Description Logic (DL) as an alternative to regular logic. DL is used in the semantic web, and deals more with descriptions than math, so that's another type of logic to consider. Unfortunately for me, I never understood DL or OWL very well, so I can't recommend DL or compare it to other logics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_logic
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 01, 2019, 11:04:27 pm
if we use physics - cells or NNs, that's universe based logic/math computin..............digital computers have artificial logic

Like korrelan, he uses a computer and has said he uses a physics NN (in the computer) to do the computation....for some purpose of course.....something like that....
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: Korrelan on November 02, 2019, 03:25:43 pm
I'm taking the road less travelled... In actual fact, there are no footprints in the sand ahead of me... I think I'm lost lol.

 ;D
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 02, 2019, 08:43:03 pm
Hehe I hinted at that idea before. Hehe. It's fun to be ahead of the pack by 980 miles. But you need to return, and share the bread to thy brethren and show them the way. Your footprints.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: Korrelan on November 03, 2019, 12:44:16 pm
Quote
Like korrelan, he uses a computer and has said he uses a physics NN (in the computer) to do the computation....for some purpose of course.....something like that....

Ok, let’s break this down ‘logically’… ish.

A simulation is not magic, it can’t produce/ provide anything that standard human derived mathematics/ logic can, it is written in a Turing complete language after all.

The whole point of a simulation is to calculate functionality/ properties that are not easily definable using standard logic/ algorithms, usually in parallel and over space/ time where heuristics can be applied iteratively.  This also means that real world sensory data can be included in the calculations/ simulation driving/ changing the dynamics of the system on the fly.

If I wanted a processor that did calculations based on how many red/ blue balls bounced off its surface during a hurricane… I can write a simulation for that.  Any kind of system can theoretically be simulated on a Turing based machine using human derived binary logic… even the human brain.

The difference between my system and most other AI systems is that I’m not using the machines logic/ heuristics directly; I’m not using the computers standard logic to compute and outcome/ result.  I’m using the computer to simulate another type of processor that calculates on different principles, and that provides the results.

This is basically what we designed/ invented computers for.

 :)
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 03, 2019, 05:42:24 pm
Ok so you simulate a neural structure and THAT gives you the results/ computes the result but how......all that could happen is a neuron with 8 or 1,000 connections all receive a vote and combine it at that location, it's just a weighing-in vote after all that. A number based on signals. Exactly what all nets do. Collect votes/energy...

Or does your do it in a more realist manner? Like signals driving drown axons and crashing together at the end of the tunnel in a detailed expression....?

Your peers want to know.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: Korrelan on November 03, 2019, 06:19:59 pm
Quote
Or does your do it in a more realist manner?

Yes, I simulate a biochemical/ electrical neural processor that runs a 'program' (GTP) that processes 'data' and gives the 'results', well... technically it cycles the 'results'.

 :)
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 03, 2019, 06:43:44 pm
Lol stop saying GTP, we get that, that is an algorithm.....we're talking about the 3D structure - what is being simulated - cell walls? Axon walls, reaction physics when the signals unite....and why is that important also.

I want to know about this new simulated processor - the physics behind it. Imagine 2 bouncing balls in a 5D space. I don't want to know about their direction or what controls them. I want to know about the environment, the 5D space - the walls to be specific....why simulate physics of the walls of the structure, or friction etc of the balls while travelling as 'signals'...
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: Korrelan on November 03, 2019, 07:29:54 pm
Quote
Lol stop saying GTP, we get that, that is an algorithm

No it’s not… it’s a complex pattern of activation, a wave, a cyclic electro-chemical manifestation/ phenomena lol.

Quote
we're talking about the 3D structure - what is being simulated

Everything, well… everything I deem required… many types of neurons, glial cells, transmitter compounds, axons, dendrites, synaptic junctions, electrical activity, etc

Quote
and why is that important also.

Because it wouldn’t work otherwise lol.

Quote
I want to know about the environment, the 5D space - the walls to be specific....why simulate physics of the walls of the structure, or friction etc of the balls while travelling as 'signals'

I believe I’ve figured out what creates/ generates intelligence/ self awareness/ consciousness in nature, be it in slime mould, ants, octopuses, dolphins, monkeys, apes or humans.  The ‘mechanism’ can’t be computed in a standard schema, so I have to simulate the whole machine.

I can do this all night lock….I’m not giving up my tech… just yet.

 :)

Anyway... I thought GPT-2 was the answer/ solution to AGI?

 :)
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 03, 2019, 07:39:36 pm
Or maybe you mean not the simulated blob is making the result, but rather it is COMPUTING the result.

However I can't help but imagine chemo-electrical cars crashing at the cross-section joint is the result AND the computation. I'll stick to my understanding of intelligence to grasp AGI for now.


Edit:
Cus whether you make a real robot tinman or simulate his tincan butt in a computer world, there's always going to be nodes voting and activating and summing up some sort of number you see...
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 03, 2019, 10:02:33 pm
"So, instead of looking for something to replace computation, let's look for the right kind of computation."

"BROOKS: Let me give you an example that fits your model there. We went from the Turing machine to the RAM model, and current computational complexity is really built on the RAM model of computation. It’s how space and time trade off in computation."

Yes! Here they speed up 'computation' (and 'do computation') by , just storing larger data, or refined data...that way you compute less and have experience instead in the system. You can have fast speed but big memory, or small mem but slow speed.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: goaty on November 04, 2019, 03:34:16 pm
Goaties DYK -> (did u know)

*  If you've got an input or an output,  you don't need an oscillator to run the system,    you just supply battery and when you change the input the output naturally changes. The form of a feedforward neural network is the same as that.   an I->O machine needent have an oscillator, it just has to conduct its way across for its result.

So no osc required for logic nescessarily!!!  yay ezy!
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on November 09, 2019, 07:42:18 am
Alright, weekendly update! Here's my attempts at the further development of this non rigorous perception idea. Also, I'm trying out a GCRERAC format, who knows, maybe it will guide me to the light.

Goal:

My primary assumption here, is that nature has refined the art of making effective divisions in experience to quite a high degree. These divisions are units of thought, they are shaped to fit together, thus having the benefit of being easily unified and held at arms length when necessary. Seeing these "thinks" in terms of others, in a web of interaction, could be a powerful tool for AGI. I will discuss the pros and cons of logical "Single File" perception VS my theoretical "Wholeistic" perception, then try to discover and convey ways of representing them.

"Diagram":

(https://i.ibb.co/6sVWmwG/pressure-cracks-in-lake-ice-nick-norman.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LpbZ8RB)

Conflict:

There are some foreseeable consequences to just using a linear thought process. For example, after carefully reasoning, a one-at-a-time logical machine, (or person taught to use their mind in this way), might conclude they should devote their time to the pursuit of happiness. Then, not having access to the big picture as a cohesive whole, they're liable to overlook that pursuing happiness directly won't be a fulfilling use of their time, the linear logical pursuit can block itself. Like inadvertently walking in large circles by focusing exclusively on foot placement.

When we consider robots, we want to give them our best characteristics. Science and technology are in right now, so we focus on those, the things we consider most civilized, the quantitative.

To discover what something is, we perform an experiment, take the results, the numerable facts, and associate them backwards with the object of the experiment. Which objectively, is backwards thinking. For a purpose yes, but you don't want to be doing it all the time.

It's mostly useful because it contrasts well against our wholeistic perception. A(~G)I's are on track to lack this property; and giving them solely analytic linear processing will limit their mental depth perception. How might that manifest? Well, humans are susceptible to the misapplication of thought types as well.

Our instincts probably take their cues from the greater world model. Giving us advice which we may not immediately understand, nor need to understand. That's helpful, to a point. Continued running on reason without sufficient referral to perception can result in errors, which can corrupt much of our world view. Perception, assumptions/conclusions, continuous verification. That's how it should go, with teamwork.

When properly balanced, the wholeistic perception should keep the single file perception from doing anything laughably unwise, while the single file perception should greatly enhance the wholeistic system's ability to alter their environment.

In conclusion, I think the most effective way of experiencing the universe is like a traditional beam pattern. A cone of diffuse light with a bright spot at its center. The larger cone reveals where to apply the smaller one. A traditional robot would perceive with a focused beam, and a dog would perceive with a diffuse beam. Combine them, and you get human like perception. We've got the logic down, the question is, how do we give robots diffuse perception?

Diagram:

(https://i.ibb.co/m8Kn2Cf/Diagrams-Flashlight.png) (https://ibb.co/vYWNTx0)

Result:

Firstly, since the wide beam will cover A LOT, we should make an attempt to simplify its job. It may be more efficient to interpret perception in terms of verbs, rather than nouns. It makes sense to use verbs because of their properties. There are fewer of them, they add a dimension, and they've got fuzzy boundaries! Maybe that's why memory and understanding have fuzzy edges. Maybe integration pays better than precision when handling large data. Maybe something to do with lose tolerances as well, so processes have lower odds of jamming up, (and higher odds of jamming ;).

Secondly, the random bits of perception intended for the background mosaic should be fitted together symmetrically (like the first "Diagram":). (Fitting things together using symmetry is also efficient, balance conserves energy. But I suspect that perfect symmetry is too stable, too nonreactive, that's probably why it paradoxically misses the mark on humans.) Matching the pieces isn't easy, our senses are not all-knowing, they only pick disjointed fragments out of the universal tapestry. We have to invent our own context for each of these fragments.

So it's not like an AGI's "cohesive" world view would make exact sense, or possesses much inherent symmetry. What we perceive can point to a greater order, but isn't itself ordered. So we need a fitting method to make use of the jumbled info we do get. It's like chess, only with fuzzy rules, and an unknown number of invisible pieces. You can't brute force all the possible moves, can't insure victory by only using the basic principles of the visible pieces. The invisible pieces will create exceptions to these rules.

Diagram:

(https://i.ibb.co/rMTgqTS/Dice.png) (https://ibb.co/QnzZhzR)

The losses from unsymmetrical interactions: (Bell curve?)
5x5=25         9x9 = ((8+10)/2)^2 = 81
4x6=24         8x10 = 80
3x7=21...      7x11 = 77...

(https://i.ibb.co/RjwRQxp/Dis-Symmetry-Losses.png) (https://ibb.co/FHTR8Sb)

Yup, why is it always bell curves!?!?!? But fortunately this means the effect is forgiving near the apex. Therefore you can do this:

(https://i.ibb.co/nrN3yTP/Symmetry-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Mnx8HbB)


Now you might ask: "HS?  Why not pure symmetry? What exactly is wrong with that?" Yes, it is the easiest to move, but its movement has no novelty. If you take a double pendulum which is unbalanced, vs balanced, vs nearly balanced, and give them all a swing, the nearly balanced one will probably cross the most points on it's natural reactive movement. This would correspond to the most general type of intelligence. 

(https://i.ibb.co/0Yc1vC3/pendulums.png) (https://ibb.co/SVPHGtp)


Emotion:

The wide beam communicates in large bandwidth to the small beam using emotion. It's a ground up approach. Acute intelligence is more suited to a top down approach. Eg, [you are my/I am your] [wife/husband] , which means we should interact like [ ex ].  Then you get a divorce... It's binary on or off. Going with the bottom up route, the most comfortable natural relationship indicates appropriate adjectives. It's basically listening to reality. This way behavior is less forced, and personal/interpersonal discord is reduced.

If its true that perception is made from verbs, then that's the source of the phenomenon where people are miserable in apparently luxurious environments. Like the typical paradox with smiling peasants and sulky business men. Material (nounal) quality of life ≠ actual quality of life. Rather the actual quality of life = the quality of personal narrative. And the quality of personal narrative = (material quality of life)*(perceived verb sequences). The brain requires experiencing the correct verbs in the correct orders, for proper informational nutrition. But verbs require nouns, the discrete things created by the strong beam, in order to exist in an according abundance.

Far be it from me to say, I feel like a complete waste of food when one of them shows up, but I think this may partially explain why highly intelligent people are more susceptible to depression and the like. We use what's available right? High IQ people have a better narrow beam, so they apply it more often, to a greater range of things. Conversely, it doesn't make sense for someone like me to make my way through the world, using primarily logical analysis, I'd never get anywhere!

Point is, that too great of an imbalance between the apparent usefulness of the broad and the narrow beams of perception, can lead to a disproportionate use of one or the other. And this would do what? Remember "5*5=25" ? And,  "(material quality of life)*(perceived verb sequences) = (quality of personal narrative)"? It could be that: (single file logic)*(wholistic perception) = (a maximized self).

Diagram:

(https://i.ibb.co/sKkJ7BH/Screenshot-336.png) (https://ibb.co/6HVJQdB)

Reason:

What life forms are having the best go of it? In general, probably retrievers, labs, beagles... Now using linear, a to b, cause and effect reasoning, will tell you that dogs have good lives thanks to humans, ergo lets pat ourselves on the back, we are very generous. But when we step back and see the interactions of everything, the other perspective reveals that credit is due to their skill at selecting/creating the best niche. They can be viewed as winning at life more skillfully than any of us intellectually advanced lifeforms. This is indicative of really effective divisions in their broad beams of perception. We should learn from them to see how its done, and convey these skills to AGI.

So, it follows that the focused dissective intelligence we're most proud of has little to do with acting rightly in the grand scheme of things. All it does is increase the influence of a given entity on the world. It is more a tool of being, than the core of being.

That being said, focused intelligence can still multiply the awesomeness of your creature by a brsdfgkjsillion. It could sort of juggle the various facets illuminated by the wide beam. I think you'd need to have several main methods of arranging this data into useful internal discoveries. A basic mental toolbox, a collection of useful algorithms. Each GI develops a unique bag of tricks. Though each member of a species probably gets a similar "essentials" starter pack at the start.

We should think carefully about these tools because they should be designed to handle, and pick apart whatever the broad beam presents. Verb handling tools...

"Diagram:"

(https://i.ibb.co/6W4k68w/boxing-tool-box-character-cartoon-drawing-csp53582099.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

Anticipation:

How could  the pieces of wholistic perception be fitted together? Melted edges? Imagined framework? Bookshelf? Fitting into personal narrative like bricks and mortar? I like the last one, it fits with my "primary pathways and processes of intelligence" diagram and accidentally incorporates the verb idea. Maybe that's not how we do it at all, but there could be several ways of getting this party started. I mean, just getting cohesion between my ideas could be worth something, even if nature is doing it another way.

Alright. So lets represent it by showing the potentials of a chess board all at once with verbs indicated by positive and negative shading like magnetic fields, and then applying logic to the critical paths. They can be represented by magnetic fields because the invisible pieces reduce the visible piece's probability of influence with distances (x,y,t).

The other adjustment to regular chess is giving rules soft boundaries to introduce some room for error. I believe neural nets are able to think quickly and repetitively because they use approximations.

There are sure to be less glitches if thinking involves collisions of large numbers of signals. Given the brain's seeming "what the hell" attitude towards the fine points of internal structuring, (respect), clashes of armies instead of duels look like an effective strategy for dependable repeatable results. Like running a simulation multiple times, only in parallel.

Therefore, to get those types of forgiving mechanics, I'll represent each chess piece with 81 pieces of it's type.  For now, here's the basic idea.

Diagram:

(https://i.ibb.co/rfy1mtf/Screenshot-356.png) (https://ibb.co/7Ny6XzN)

The big external perceptual chess board becomes more and more internal with time. Which helps to identify present situations from context noticed in past situations. Part of patterns evoke larger memorized ones from experiences in the past. Therefore broad perception will draw increasingly from these memorized big data slides. It could keep optimizing itself indefinitely. What's next? No clue. Maybe someone else has some ideas.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: WriterOfMinds on November 09, 2019, 06:01:01 pm
This is the first long-form theory piece someone's posted here since ... I don't know when.  Respect.

The complaint I've had in the back of my mind since the beginning of this thread, has been that I think you're being a little unfair to the concept of "logic."  There are forms of logic that incorporate uncertainty and imprecision, and to imply that logic is always linear or sequential might also be overly narrow.  But that is probably just a semantic quibble.

I like the general idea of "broad and shallow PLUS focused and deep."  Seems like it could apply not just to perception, but to any form of information access or search.  (Though maybe when you said "perception" you weren't just referring to the data stream from sense organs.)

I'm less convinced by "verbs over nouns."  There's some experimental evidence that human children learn nouns first/faster, which could suggest that nouns are easier or more fundamental (though there seems to be uncertainty about how much the child's native language and specifically speech-related [as opposed to conceptualizing] skills play into this).  In any case, you end up needing both, and I'm not sure that categorically excluding either one from the diffuse zone is what I'd do.

It is true that change in the "wide beam" area tends to draw our focus.  For example, unexpected motion in your peripheral vision will probably prompt you to turn your head and get details.  But this seems less about "verbs" (putting a label on what happened) than the mere concept of change: "something moved."

Your discussion of the smiling peasant and sulky rich man also comes across as a bit weak, because nouns aren't strictly about material objects.  "Joy," "justice," "friendship," and "beauty" are all nouns, for instance.  "Personal narrative" strikes me as a worthwhile thing to explore, though.

Quote
What we perceive can point to a greater order, but isn't itself ordered. So we need a fitting method to make use of the jumbled info we do get.

The flood of information we receive from our perceptive organs is scarcely useful to us in its raw form, so we make sense of it by finding patterns, learning categories, and building up successive layers of abstraction.  Yes.

When you talk about symmetry being more efficient, are you reaching for ideas about data compression?  (Symmetry implies a degree of redundancy, so you can get away with storing and processing less info.)

Quote
What life forms are having the best go of it? In general, probably retrievers, labs, beagles...

That's very subjective.  Some beagles are being brutalized in testing labs.  Some retrievers get dumped at an animal shelter and euthanized when their human family decides they're too old or too inconvenient.  In general, an individual dog is no match for an individual human who wants to do him harm ... they're only "successful" compared to humans at the species level.  Even if we only consider the lucky dogs, I wouldn't trade my life for theirs.  I value my "higher" reasoning powers even when they bring me anguish.

"I envy not in any moods
The captive void of noble rage,
The linnet born within the cage,
That never knew the summer woods:

I envy not the beast that takes
His license in the field of time,
Unfetter'd by the sense of crime,
To whom a conscience never wakes ...

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all."  (Alfred, Lord Tennyson)

Some of what dogs have achieved could also be an accident of history.  Is their mutualism with humans a product of superior intelligence on their part, or did it form due to circumstances outside their control?  Would they have fared equally well if the available niches had been different?  (In short, how "general" is the type of intelligence that dogs excel in?)

Quote
The wide beam communicates in large bandwidth to the small beam using emotion. ... It's basically listening to reality.

Careful.  I agree that emotions provide information.  Sometimes it's valuable.  But it's also prone to inaccuracies, bias, etc. ... which means it generally needs to be audited by the narrow beam before you use it, in my opinion.  I would not consider emotional information to be a more reliable representation of reality than any other.  Plus, your top-level executive functions feed back into how your "wide beam" interprets the world.  You can groom your emotions over time.  Don't just follow your heart; lead your heart.

In the example you gave of relationships and marriage ... I suspect that choosing to love someone (in the operational sense, where you work toward their best interest) can help manufacture love-the-emotion for you, creating positive feedback loops.  If you only love (action) the people you experience love-the-emotion for, you're doing things backwards.

Quote
So, it follows that the focused dissective intelligence we're most proud of has little to do with acting rightly in the grand scheme of things. All it does is increase the influence of a given entity on the world. It is more a tool of being, than the core of being.

I like this, but I would identify the "core of being" or the source of "acting rightly" as goals and values -- not a more diffuse variant of intelligence, nor emotions.  All forms of intelligence are tools for reaching our goals, and emotions are just more things that happen to us.  The choices of the will are what ultimately make for a good or bad life.

The "chess with invisible pieces" experiment is nice as a metaphor, to show how the skills you're reaching for differ from those needed for regular chess ... but for a demo, I'd rather see the concepts applied to a real-world scenario.  Like "navigate through this crowd of people who will move in only semi-predictable ways," or "given a sentence that might have missing words, construct the sentence most-likely-intended by the speaker."  That would better help me connect your ideas to their practical realization.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on November 11, 2019, 11:23:16 pm
I appreciate the extensive feedback.

The complaint I've had in the back of my mind since the beginning of this thread, has been that I think you're being a little unfair to the concept of "logic."  There are forms of logic that incorporate uncertainty and imprecision, and to imply that logic is always linear or sequential might also be overly narrow.

Yep, darn logic seems to be everywhere. I should probably just look for a variety which incorporates room for error.

Quote
I'm less convinced by "verbs over nouns." 

I was going for the concept of "static things" VS "changing things", and yes, nouns/verbs don't describe that perfectly. Same with the contentment/discontentment in people. That could be dependent on the static/dynamic elements found by their perception, as well as their ability to turn those elements into something worthwhile, eg, a fulfilling personal narrative. I believe this is the predominant ultimate goal for people.

The idea is, that without sufficient dynamic elements, no amount of static elements will improve your narrative. They would become just so much irrelevant exposition. I think we know things in terms of objects, and understand them in terms of processes. So, the broad beam understands, while the narrow beam knows. We require a daily understanding of our own progression through our story.

Quote
There's some experimental evidence that human children learn nouns first/faster, which could suggest that nouns are easier or more fundamental (though there seems to be uncertainty about how much the child's native language and specifically speech-related [as opposed to conceptualizing] skills play into this).

Learning to represent dynamic things in a language might also be more challenging because, the symbols used for actions, usually have less in common with the things they are meant to represent. For example, a glyph for crocodile which resembles a crocodile is something resembling geometric onomatopoeia, so learning is simplified. Conversely, "to bounce", as written, is further removed; requiring more points of verification, and therefore time, to be integrated by the brain.


Quote
When you talk about symmetry being more efficient, are you reaching for ideas about data compression?  (Symmetry implies a degree of redundancy, so you can get away with storing and processing less info.)

Symmetry seems like it could help with data placement and reduce storage/retrieval/calculation requirements. I wasn't exactly reaching for that use of it, I just noticed a pattern and wondered if it could be useful in some way. I was more leaning towards the idea that the system should detect and link opposites, up-down, forwards-backwards, light-dark, light-heavy. Because these things appear together in our perception. To recognize something as heavy requires a lighter thing to compare it to, so those concepts end up linked in our minds. Probably in both beams even, we know things are light or heavy, and we understand the difference in terms of processes.

Quote
In general, an individual dog is no match for an individual human who wants to do him harm ... they're only "successful" compared to humans at the species level.  Even if we only consider the lucky dogs, I wouldn't trade my life for theirs.  I value my "higher" reasoning powers even when they bring me anguish.

Ok, dogs don't top the food chain, or power pyramid, but I still think they are living the most... admirably, maybe. Both in relation to others, and themselves. Firstly, they refrain from making themselves miserable, while humans have a talent for it. Secondly, dogs don't abandon humans if they are old or inconvenient, neither do they perform "ends justify the means" lab experiments on us, or anything. That stuff rebounds on us. If you do something wrong, your psyche doesn't accept intellectual excuses. So I'm not convinced it's the higher reasoning directly which brings you anguish, it could be just the "lower" reason's protests at being interfered with.

Anyways, consequences spring up, people are harboring increasing resentments towards their own species. See, even our will to remedie often starts off on the wrong foot, it would be funny if it didn't turn out so serious. I think it's safe to say, that we probably don't have all the best ideas. It could be worthwhile to study/teach how other life forms interact. Those are the best non-theoretical examples we have, and we don't have a good track record with the institution of purely theoretical methods.


Quote
(In short, how "general" is the type of intelligence that dogs excel in?)

I think they excel in adaptability, which is even better, but can lead to very general intelligences. I think their genetics are very Swiss army knife. So they can adjust their behaviors to the changing times rather well. Evolutionarily speaking, we probably have a strong reaction to what we see as kindness/goodness because we of its usefulness. I think dogs have discovered this same, small group mentality as humans, only they have honed it to an even broader degree. If true, this should allow them to secure better niches in a broader range of environments.

Quote
I like this, but I would identify the "core of being" or the source of "acting rightly" as goals and values -- not a more diffuse variant of intelligence, nor emotions.  All forms of intelligence are tools for reaching our goals, and emotions are just more things that happen to us.  The choices of the will are what ultimately make for a good or bad life.

I agree, personal pivot points hinge on your basic values, but those seem to be noticed, chosen, and strengthened by emotional responses. The will judges importance by sensing emotion and takes an appropriate stance. A depressed person has some emotions reduced, and their will seems reduced accordingly. A passionate person has some emotions increased, and their will seems increased accordingly. I think emotions, are like air, they are always there, sustaining you. But so ever-present that you only notice them when you have "weather."


Great theory testing ideas! I'll save them for when I feel like continuing this "background of thought" idea.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: LOCKSUIT on November 12, 2019, 01:24:05 am
I'm really confused on this thread, can we summarize.........say we want to build a AGI, and we focus on the computer running it (including the logic of the AGI).

Logic, to me, means:
1) AND OR NOR gates in transistors.
2) Prediction (aka reasoning/planning) using big data.
3) Binary data - 1s & 0s in computers.

To me, to build AGI, we need binary data (everything is binary in electronics...). We also need prediction modeling (AGI basically is a decision maker based on past data...). And we need computer transistors to carry out logic on 1s & 0s.

How, or what, do you differ or ponder HS? What is it you are deviating away from? Why lol? I mean, when we decide how AGI works, we need not worry about 1s & 0s theory nor worry about carrying out logic on transistors, because binary data and transistors allow us to simulate any possible movie in a 3D simulator, any kind of physics, anything in the universe, my computer is a universal computer, it can run a 3D sim that parallely processes a prime number on a quantum computer...As the CPU runs sequentially, it updates each part of the 3D sim, so my pc is universal and can run any 3D sim, as long as the project file has the right codes :-) (for running a mini universe lol). Anyhow, if we run a AGI algorithm, my point is we can use transistors.

But to consider an alternative to transistors in an AGI brain to act as its predictive model, hmm, well here we are trying to discover how AGI works. The reasoning in an AGI brain is like RAM+processor logic, it is self-attention, gates DO open in relation to related words, and even tally up as votes like an AND or OR gate. So really we got the idea there already, well, at least I do lol.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: WriterOfMinds on November 12, 2019, 01:56:15 am
Quote
The idea is, that without sufficient dynamic elements, no amount of static elements will improve your narrative.

But without sufficient static elements, the dynamic elements have nothing to operate on. :)

Making a distinction between "things" (the nouns), "processes" (the verbs), and "states" (we haven't talked about those yet ... they'd be the adjectives), and making separate provision for each of them, is an idea that I appreciate.  I just don't know if there's a good basis for preferring one over another, or trying to improve efficiency by choosing only one to look at.

Quote
Quote
There's some experimental evidence that human children learn nouns first/faster, which could suggest that nouns are easier or more fundamental (though there seems to be uncertainty about how much the child's native language and specifically speech-related [as opposed to conceptualizing] skills play into this).

Learning to represent dynamic things in a language might also be more challenging because, the symbols used for actions, usually have less in common with the things they are meant to represent. For example, a glyph for crocodile which resembles a crocodile is something resembling geometric onomatopoeia, so learning is simplified. Conversely, "to bounce", as written, is further removed; requiring more points of verification, and therefore time, to be integrated by the brain.

The studies I was thinking of were testing little kids' ability to learn spoken language, not ideograms.  The researchers used made-up words for both the objects and the actions to avoid biasing the results.

Quote
Ok, dogs don't top the food chain, or power pyramid, but I still think they are living the most... admirably, maybe.

Maybe so; but now we're not talking about intelligence any more.  Have you heard of the Orthogonality Thesis?  It posits that an entity could have an arbitrarily high level of intelligence, while holding values and carrying out behaviors that the average person would find horrific.  (See https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis and https://arbital.com/p/orthogonality/)

I have seen some people on Reddit who were stubbornly committed to the idea that "intelligence" is the same thing as "enlightenment," and insisted that an ASI couldn't possibly have values that would be evil or stupid by human lights; even if it started out with bad values, once it got smart enough it would change them. I think this is ridiculous. The only way to reason out (or emote out) that your values are bad is to judge them against a higher standard. Humans sometimes change low-level values when we reason out that they are in conflict with our top-level values -- but we never reason our way to a change in our top-level values. If you have a higher standard to compare your top-level values against, then they're not really top-level. An ASI with bad top-level values would never change them, and would be a terror.

I would also caution against relying too much on the optimistic maxim "kind behavior is the most useful."  I think this is generally true if you are dealing with an agent who is embedded in a society of similarly powerful agents.  But it starts to break down when you introduce entities who are less powerful and aren't considered part of the society ... in short, entities who are easy for the agent to exploit.  It definitely does not apply to an AGI-turned-ASI faced with a bunch of cowering humans that are in its way.

In the context of "how do we build an artificial mind, and what should it be like," values are certainly an important thing to consider.  And I would contend that Good AI is better than Smart AI.  But Good is not part of Smart.  Good is its own thing.

Quote
If you do something wrong, your psyche doesn't accept intellectual excuses. So I'm not convinced it's the higher reasoning directly which brings you anguish, it could be just the "lower" reason's protests at being interfered with.

Guilt isn't necessarily the anguish I was thinking of.  I was thinking of the bad feelings that arise not from doing something bad, but from simply knowing troubling things: like existential dread and weltschmerz.  I don't suppose that dogs have to deal with weltschmerz, though I guess I can't ask them.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: HS on November 12, 2019, 02:20:35 am
Quote
I'm really confused on this thread, can we summarize.........say we want to build a AGI, and we focus on the computer running it (including the logic of the AGI).

I'm just looking for a way to get the world into a mind, and then have it reason logically based on that. We feel we are looking out into the world, but we are seeing our brain. It channels portions of the base universe into itself, and creates a functional secondary universe for us to contemplate, this is what I think of as perception, or broad beam.

The contemplation takes place in a third representation of the universe, where we can make changes and see what happens. This third universe is what I think of as intelligence, or narrow beam.   

Quote
Have you heard of the Orthogonality Thesis?

Nope. Seems interesting I'll take a look.

Quote
I would also caution against relying too much on the optimistic maxim "kind behavior is the most useful."

Yeah, I  see your point. You need all kinds of tools and methods to deal effectively with the world. One approach will eventually run into an obstacle which it is not suited to tackle.

Quote
I was thinking of the bad feelings that arise not from doing something bad, but from simply knowing troubling things: like existential dread and weltschmerz.

Oh, I haven't really had to deal with that. Hope I don't acquire it with time.

Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: goaty on November 12, 2019, 07:34:36 pm
The Welschmerz comes out as jokes in music and art, sometimes. u taught me a word I think Im going to attach to,  because it might as well be my middle name.  Your Welschmerzphobic, if you are illogically scared of there being not much in front of us, as humans in our pathetic boring existences where there is nothing to be proud of, even if it was right to be proud of it,  the truth of there being nothing at the bottom of a big blue sea sea sea is actually needent be because we are all dieing left right and centre, I don't even know how ppl get old its so dangerous here.
The healthy personal narrative thing, that I just appropriated in a mongrelization of what u meant probably, is I could take it as having a story you could be proud of in life, or something perhaps better, would be just simply describing your sorrounds more correctly, understanding that things are more than they seem to the surface peepers.

That thing about the robot being evIl, you reaffirmed me then, and u could only get something that [***narrow and shallow***] to do the right thing via artificial rammifications it doesn't even understand properly.


Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on November 12, 2019, 07:52:54 pm
For example, a glyph for crocodile which resembles a crocodile is something resembling geometric onomatopoeia, so learning is simplified. Conversely, "to bounce", as written, is further removed; requiring more points of verification, and therefore time, to be integrated by the brain.

When I tried to merge your two examples into a single mental image I came up with bouncing crocodiles. I like that. Sounds like either a child's toy or a rock band.

You beat me to the statement about the drawbacks of time--however much information an object contains, as soon as you move that object continuously in time you suddenly need an uncountably infinite amount of information to describe it. As soon as databases, neural networks, logic, or any other computer constructs attempt to incorporate time, we find the required memory space shoots out of control, as well as the complexity of the description.

As for LOCKSUIT's later comment on logic... There are many types of little-known logics, such as temporal logics, multi-valued logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic), description logics, etc., not just boolean logic. Also, speed and efficiency are crucial to intelligence, and I even include 'efficiency' in my own definition of intelligence, so even though in theory a digital computer or Turing machine can run any algorithm, if the data structure used is not efficient for the application then an answer/response from the computer may not happen fast enough to ever be useful, which by my definition would not be a demonstration of intelligence of any appreciable degree.

If I weren't so busy on my article this week I'd comment more at length on this and other threads.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: goaty on November 12, 2019, 08:46:42 pm
For example, a glyph for crocodile which resembles a crocodile is something resembling geometric onomatopoeia, so learning is simplified. Conversely, "to bounce", as written, is further removed; requiring more points of verification, and therefore time, to be integrated by the brain.

When I tried to merge your two examples into a single mental image I came up with bouncing crocodiles. I like that. Sounds like either a child's toy or a rock band.

You beat me to the statement about the drawbacks of time--however much information an object contains, as soon as you move that object continuously in time you suddenly need an uncountably infinite amount of information to describe it. As soon as databases, neural networks, logic, or any other computer constructs attempt to incorporate time, we find the required memory space shoots out of control, as well as the complexity of the description.

As for LOCKSUIT's later comment on logic... There are many types of little-known logics, such as temporal logics, multi-valued logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic), description logics, etc., not just boolean logic. Also, speed and efficiency are crucial to intelligence, and I even include 'efficiency' in my own definition of intelligence, so even though in theory a digital computer or Turing machine can run any algorithm, if the data structure used is not efficient for the application then an answer/response from the computer may not happen fast enough to ever be useful, which by my definition would not be a demonstration of intelligence of any appreciable degree.

If I weren't so busy on my article this week I'd comment more at length on this and other threads.

Ah common u know this one- About that information overload due to trivial circumstances,   you only need 1 cell to fire, but it has to fire in all circumstances - invariance.  And it ends up being a form of compression.  It works feedforward into your robo-brain,  but does it work backwards to dream back out of 1 cell all possible positions that fire the dumbbell?  I bet theres a trick for that.

theres only 1 logic to me,  logic itself, but of course that's just definition arguments.
Title: Re: Ideas for Alternatives to Logic
Post by: AndyGoode on November 13, 2019, 08:57:23 pm
you only need 1 cell to fire, but it has to fire in all circumstances - invariance.  And it ends up being a form of compression.  It works feedforward into your robo-brain,  but does it work backwards to dream back out of 1 cell all possible positions that fire the dumbbell?  I bet theres a trick for that.

Right on track. That's why people were mentioning object-based reasoning in this thread. If you can develop a system that reliably extracts the most useful invariants from sensory input, especially virtual objects, then you have a good starting point for more advanced logic.  That relates to what I was saying about efficiency: an object-based reasoning system would probably be very efficient because it's working with high-level, compressed, useful abstractions, the same abstractions that people probably use, so that would be a likely starting point for true human-style intelligence/reasoning.

I wish I knew if there were a term for that division between the mentioned hierarchies, and what it is. Maybe 'early vision' or 'low-level vision' versus 'late vision' or 'high-level vision'. Low-level vision is a very challenging problem and doesn't interest me much, so when designing AI systems I like to assume that someone has already solved that problem as a foundation to the more interesting problem of human style reasoning. In practice, however, the two problems are coupled because the brain recalls objects similar to those with attributes similar to the inputted low-level objects and their components, then presumably delivers hypotheses as high-level objects to match against that low-level input. That greatly speeds object recognition, and it's a good system, but it requires solving at least two very difficult problems, one for low-level vision, one for high-level vision.

https://msu.edu/~fcdyer/ZOL867/ZOL867VisionII.pdf