Why not leapfrog AI and go directly towards cognition, aka synthetic reasoning? "The Cognitive Dynamics of Computer Science" by S.M. deGyurky. In chapter 14 he details the computer architecture of a reasoning system, and postulates 4 levels of autonomy.
So few voters know the issues or candidates. Many can't even figure out how to punch a chad from a card. I say we just let the voting machines do the voting for us. Put some real autonomy in the boxes, give 'em access to the web
(for researching the issues), and let 'em go at it!
This banter reminds me of some dumb Congressman who spoke at an anti-abortion rally a number of years ago and tearfully declared over and over again, "I was a feces once! We were all feces!" I'm sure he felt like one after he was told of his gaffe.
I happen to know that I am not, nor have I ever been, a feces. And, unless I'm consumed by cannibals, I never will be!
Heck, I've been using a green marker around the edge of my CDs since the '80s. Softens those strident "1" bits (makes 'em less assertive) and rounds out the "0" bits (so they're rounder, like "o"). Sounds better, and no DRM either!
8 years ago I was developing a UDP-based distributed messaging system for our local intranet, and got to a point where I couldn't get things working right. I had been using Stevens' books as my references, and I noticed his email address in the preface.
"What the hey," I thought. "I'll email him." So I did, and then went to lunch.
Imagine my surprise upon my return when I saw 2 return emails waiting! He explained in great detail what I was doing wrong conceptually, and gave exacting instructions on how to make a certain part work. In the second email, he said it didn't sit well with him to leave me with an "unoptimal solution" (his words), so on his own time he came up with an even better paradigm, and sent actual tested code to implement it!
What can I say? His books will always grace my shelf.
> Actions can do anything at all.
This is very interesting. But what are the limitations in invoking an action? Can I do that from my Cocoa app, or is it strictly an interactive/GUI operation?
> if you share a song, or the text of a book, or any intellectual property, you do not lose your ability to use it.
I DO lose the ability to control my own creation, and thus my ability to generate income on derivative works because every Tom, Dick & Harry is perverting my work. I'd love to know why it's a so-called "compelling interest to society" to wrest ownership away from creators. The cry of "It's in the people's interest!" sounds like communism to me.
> All creativity somewhat depends on the creativity of others who have come before.
Not by a free-works fiat, it doesn't. Just because I can't plunder the Mickey Mouse copyright doesn't mean I can't create my own characters. Just because someone OWNS what he created doesn't cripple my ability to create.
Taking away ownership and moving it into the public arena chills the creative spirit. Apparently, you are "user" and not a "creator" or you might be able to relate.
> The "something from nothing" is actually "something from solar energy"
Most interesting assertion, but, adding energy to a system increases its entropy, not its order.
> And evolution isn't directed. However it is constrained by natural selection.
This underscores my point. By what cause did "natural selection" arise? We seem to be getting a free lunch here, but pushing the buck off onto some other process isn't helping the issue.
-- BYTEBuG
Re:Something from nothing?
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 1
> Information is not inherent to any system, ordered or otherwise.
You've confused "meaning" with "information." Information is a measure of how far removed from random a system is (an objective reality), regardless of whether a mind has perceived it. Meaning is whatever value you place on your perception of it (a subjective reality).
> There is no information inherent to your genome, or mine.
Sorry to disagree, but this is circular reasoning. An ordered system (read: an information-rich objective reality) give birth to you and me. The great question remains: Where does such information originate?
-- BYTEBuG
Re:Something from nothing?
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 0, Troll
"Life creates the needed information"?!
Oh, my!
Look at the amount of information stored in your genome. Heck, the amount of information stored in single polypeptide is staggering.
That highly ordered information, directed to the operation of a specific amino acid, cell, being, etc., cannot come from randomness or chaos, else you would be alleging that there's an information content in that randomness or chaos. That begs the verboten question: Whence did THAT information arise?
The information inherent in an ordered system is not a consequence of random events. If it were, it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is, I think, why the researchers fear to tread on these grounds.
-- BYTEBuG
Something from nothing?
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 0, Troll
With every new dissertation on evolution, I find it interesting that no researcher seems to address the fundamental, underlying problem which dogs evolution:
Where does new genetic information come from?
Neither McNamara nor Gould even bother to touch on this, even theoretically. Why is it so important? Because they're saying we're getting something from nothing.
A system which isn't directed towards any goal teleologically goes nowhere. And if it is directed, it must have a net positive influx of information. What is that source?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not leapfrog AI and go directly towards cognition, aka synthetic reasoning? "The Cognitive Dynamics of Computer Science" by S.M. deGyurky. In chapter 14 he details the computer architecture of a reasoning system, and postulates 4 levels of autonomy.
...that the Lego CEO gets a $100 million Christmas bonus anyway?
So few voters know the issues or candidates.
Many can't even figure out how to punch a chad from a card.
I say we just let the voting machines do the voting for us.
Put some real autonomy in the boxes, give 'em access to the web
(for researching the issues), and let 'em go at it!
I happen to know that I am not, nor have I ever been, a feces. And, unless I'm consumed by cannibals, I never will be!
Heck, I've been using a green marker around the edge of my CDs since the '80s. Softens those strident "1" bits (makes 'em less assertive) and rounds out the "0" bits (so they're rounder, like "o"). Sounds better, and no DRM either!
8 years ago I was developing a UDP-based distributed messaging system for our local intranet, and got to a point where I couldn't get things working right. I had been using Stevens' books as my references, and I noticed his email address in the preface.
"What the hey," I thought. "I'll email him." So I did, and then went to lunch.
Imagine my surprise upon my return when I saw 2 return emails waiting! He explained in great detail what I was doing wrong conceptually, and gave exacting instructions on how to make a certain part work. In the second email, he said it didn't sit well with him to leave me with an "unoptimal solution" (his words), so on his own time he came up with an even better paradigm, and sent actual tested code to implement it!
What can I say? His books will always grace my shelf.
My bad. Is Automator the sole interface to execute workflows?
> Actions can do anything at all. This is very interesting. But what are the limitations in invoking an action? Can I do that from my Cocoa app, or is it strictly an interactive/GUI operation?
> if you share a song, or the text of a book, or any intellectual property, you do not lose your ability to use it.
I DO lose the ability to control my own creation, and thus my ability to generate income on derivative works because every Tom, Dick & Harry is perverting my work. I'd love to know why it's a so-called "compelling interest to society" to wrest ownership away from creators. The cry of "It's in the people's interest!" sounds like communism to me.
> All creativity somewhat depends on the creativity of others who have come before.
Not by a free-works fiat, it doesn't. Just because I can't plunder the Mickey Mouse copyright doesn't mean I can't create my own characters. Just because someone OWNS what he created doesn't cripple my ability to create.
Taking away ownership and moving it into the public arena chills the creative spirit.
Apparently, you are "user" and not a "creator" or you might be able to relate.
Only a socialist mind would hold that a copyright should automatically be bequeathed unto the masses after an arbitrary date.
If I create a work, I (and my heirs) should have exclusive rights to it, ad infinitum.
Anything else is... socialism!
-- BYTEBuG
There ain't no life but here on earth; not so much as a microbe anywhere else.
As with UFOlogy, SETI-like efforts will continue ad infinitum cuz you can't prove a negative.
-- BYTEBuG
> The "something from nothing" is actually "something from solar energy"
Most interesting assertion, but, adding energy to a system increases its entropy, not its order.
> And evolution isn't directed. However it is constrained by natural selection.
This underscores my point. By what cause did "natural selection" arise? We seem to be getting a free lunch here, but pushing the buck off onto some other process isn't helping the issue.
-- BYTEBuG
> Information is not inherent to any system, ordered or otherwise.
You've confused "meaning" with "information." Information is a measure of how far removed from random a system is (an objective reality), regardless of whether a mind has perceived it. Meaning is whatever value you place on your perception of it (a subjective reality).
> There is no information inherent to your genome, or mine.
Sorry to disagree, but this is circular reasoning. An ordered system (read: an information-rich objective reality) give birth to you and me. The great question remains: Where does such information originate?
-- BYTEBuG
"Life creates the needed information"?!
Oh, my!
Look at the amount of information stored in your genome. Heck, the amount of information stored in single polypeptide is staggering.
That highly ordered information, directed to the operation of a specific amino acid, cell, being, etc., cannot come from randomness or chaos, else you would be alleging that there's an information content in that randomness or chaos. That begs the verboten question: Whence did THAT information arise?
The information inherent in an ordered system is not a consequence of random events. If it were, it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is, I think, why the researchers fear to tread on these grounds.
-- BYTEBuG
With every new dissertation on evolution, I find it interesting that no researcher seems to address the fundamental, underlying problem which dogs evolution:
Where does new genetic information come from?
Neither McNamara nor Gould even bother to touch on this, even theoretically. Why is it so important? Because they're saying we're getting something from nothing.
A system which isn't directed towards any goal teleologically goes nowhere. And if it is directed, it must have a net positive influx of information. What is that source?
-- BYTEBuG