Post by tkorrovi on Feb 26, 2013 12:50:16 GMT -5
I got the ai forum www.ai-forum.org posts which were the first 200 google search results of ai-forum and my nick, google knows why these are considered to be the best. Unfortunately not all and not all my posts. I don't know for how long the ai forum would be down. Some of it is should be archived in archive.org, but i don't know how many. Thank you for all who posted in that forum, which was the biggest ai forum on the web. When this forum would ever be up again (strange to think, how cheap is thought to be human effort), i hope you would get some glimpse about what this forum was, everything, good and bad. If you found it here, you are welcome to this forum, i may create a separate subforum for ai here if ai forum really never comes back. And then also i will post here all the threads which i saved, this needs many posts, that below is only the first 3%. Thank you if you care.
Topic: Emerald Tablet interpretation
tkorrovi
posted 9/23/2011 19:01 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
This is an interpretation of the Newton translation (1680), which is the translation of the Latin text in Theatrum Chemicum (1602). I wrote it in trying to show that my system can be derived from it. I can explain where every detail comes from, it is completely rational and the symbolism was well established, so certain words meant only certain things. Based on this interpretation, i have reasons to say that people who originally wrote it, knew much more than they said, because otherwise it is difficult to explain why they wrote only certain most important principles, and wrote them together in a short text.
These are the fundamental truths.
That which is on higher level is like that which is on lower level and vice versa, to manifest one interconnected whole.
All things have grown out from that whole and become what they are by adaptation.
The growth and reduction are main aspects of the fundamental system, and change and tendency toward greater harmony are inherent manifestations of these aspects.
That fundamental system is the force behind all reality.
Converting that force to physical level provides generality.
Separating the restrictive from creative and the subtle from the gross enables generality to spread.
The change of state and interaction between the fundamental and the physical level enables everything to develop.
One should now understand so much about the workings of nature, that it will be easy to see the truth from misleading.
The fundamental system is present everywhere, is inside everything, acts through everything, and what is true about it, is valid everywhere.
The reality is made following these principles, there is no other possibility.
These principles determine the processes by which the fundamental system forms into all things by adaptation.
This knowledge provides the three most fundamental philosophical principles, the growth, reduction, and interconnectedness.
This should be all that is necessary to fully understand the most fundamental in nature.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 9/23/2011 8:15:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 9/28/2011 11:44 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Some time ago, we were talking here about how the life began. I was a kind of perplexed then. But now i can say more. The most fundamental aspects of nature are growth and reduction, and indeed, the nature manifests them everywhere. We talked then that at the molecular level, there are many processes which can cause growth. But what we need for life to emerge are both growth and reduction. Growth with some sporadic reduction can result in self-development. There are many processes that cause reduction as well. What is necessary is a good combination of growth and reduction. I'm not a molecular biologist, but i think that such combination is not improbable.
These discussions here, in spite rather about remotely related things, still help me to develop my ideas further.
And Emerald Tablet, well, it was the cornerstone of the medieval science. Now rather forgotten. But it's better to know what the roots were.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 9/28/2011 5:50:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 12/11/2011 23:11 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I would try to explain you more what the principle of correspondence means regarding True AI. If it has to be unrestricted, it means that the basic mechanism has to be unrestricted. If it has to be interconnected, it means that the basic mechanism should be such that the system is interconnected. If nothing has to exist by itself, it means that the basic mechanism should not enable anything to exist by itself. Et cetera. And thus we know quite a lot about the basic mechanism, so that we can derive it.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
simnia
posted 9/9/2012 23:31 Reply with quote
This is pretty interesting, and I'm surprised I'd never heard of it before. The name alone sounds like some mystical or religious nonsense, which is off-putting, but if respected people like Isaac Newton saw and translated the document's contents, it really must have existed, even if it wasn't really written on a green stone or emerald in later years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet
The quote from this document, "The formation of the microcosm is in accordance with the formation of the macrocosm.", is an important principle of systems theory and of education that I largely learned from my own experience. To me it basically implies statements like "If you master one subject and its underlying principles, you will find the same underlying principles in any other subject" or "By examining even a microcosm (such as chess), you will learn about macrocosms (such as business success)."
Similarly, the quote "And all things sprang from this essence through a single projection." sounds like it's talking about the Big Bang, which wasn't known until modern times. Or reworded: "All things, large and small, operate according to the same natural laws." Very true.
My complaint about the Emerald Tablet text is exactly the same as my complaint about the Christian Bible or about very general philosophical works like Musashi's "The Book of Five Rings"...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Five_Rings
...or maybe the I Ching, namely, that the text contains a lot of wisdom from systems theory, but it is worded in such a general fashion that it is largely useless in practice. Its wisdom is *so* general that you can read just about any kind of interpretation into it. That means it is largely useless for making laws, making scientific discoveries, making day-to-day practical decisions, executing specific martial arts moves, and so on. In short, it's all strategy and no tactics. It would have been better if such a text were combined with specific examples of the generalities, or at least the intent and field to which it was intended.
For years I've been wanting to compile exactly such a book on wisdom and/or systems theory, and I still do, but I just don't have the time. There is a lot more I could write about systems theory, and the relationship between wisdom and knowledge (look up the DIKW spectrum, for example), and the relationship between strategy and tactics, but that would be off-topic for this thread.
Last edited by simnia @ 9/9/2012 11:39:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 9/10/2012 02:40 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
simnia wrote @ 9/9/2012 11:31:00 PM:
it is worded in such a general fashion that it is largely useless in practice.
It is general because the principles are general, these principles have to be general. But they cannot be interpreted in whatever way. Because as they are general, they also apply to everything. And this is a very strict condition, anything aimed to be general and any part of it always have to correspond to these principles.
General is what we have to deal with when we want to create True AI, specific is what we need when we want to make an AI for a specific purpose. I don't know what you expected such principles to be, general is what they have to be, or modeling such essential natural phenomena as life or human mind is not an aim.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 9/10/2012 4:37:00 AM
simnia
posted 9/10/2012 18:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 9/10/2012 2:40:00 AM:
I don't know what you expected such principles to be,
This is another topic that I tend to view as a hierarchy. In this case, specific examples would be at the bottom layer and representing the widest part of the pyramid, and at the top would be extremely general principles like "Everything goes somewhere, including the effects of any type of force" or "Anything will change over a long enough period of time", which would be at the narrowest part of the pyramid since those statements of universal applicability are fewer in number. But there is an entire spectrum of generality between. With increasing applicability you also get less specific knowledge. There is an inherent tradeoff in representations like that.
What I would expect from a really good text on general wisdom--or actually on any topic--would be the presence of all levels of generality at once so that the reader could see and understand the entire spectrum with minimal effort. That's what mastery of a topic is about, in my opinion.
In my experience, most mathematical textbooks go wrong with this, too: they present some theorem out of the blue, rigorously prove it, and then the reader is left thinking, "Well, that's nice, but so what? What good is this? Why does anybody care? How is this useful? What examples motivated somebody to go to all this work in the first place?" Then a weak math textbook will follow that theorem with some specific examples of how the theory can be applied, usually too few in number to give a real appreciation of the theorem, before launching into the student exercises that contain the most interesting and most useful examples. A bad math textbook will just immediately launch into student exercises with no examples whatsoever. To me the Emerald Tablet is like a bad math textbook: it presents some general theorems from out of the blue (out of the green?) and implies that the reader has to figure out for himself/herself how to apply them to real life.
I'll use chess as a domain to give a specific example of what I mean by layers of generality (using descriptive chess notation):
knowledge of extremely high generality:
The opening move usually highly influences the character of the ensuing game, regarding sharpness, speed, and endgame type.
If the first move is a knight move, the opening will usually transpose into a pawn opening that is better-known.
If the first move is a single square pawn advance, the opening tends to either transpose into a better-known pawn opening, or becomes defensive for the first player.
knowledge of fairly high generality:
1. P-K4 tends to lead to tactical games.
1. P-Q4 tends to lead to drawish games.
knowledge of medium generality:
The Four Knights Game tends to lead to a draw.
The Kings Gambit tends to lead to a highly tactical, interesting game.
knowledge of fairly high specificity:
The Symmetrical Variation of the Four Knights Game is almost guaranteed to end in a draw, especially if the players tend to make moves that retain pawn symmetry.
An even better text (which I don't have patience to provide here) would explain *why* each given statement is believed to be true.
Last edited by simnia @ 9/11/2012 6:48:00 AM
tkorrovi
posted 9/10/2012 22:00 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Everything you say to make it better. Why cannot you be the one who makes it better, why do you always want to be at the bottom of the pyramid? If this is where you want to be, then there you stay, you wanted it, none of your dreams can change that. I want to be at the top of the pyramid, and i stay there, if you ever want and feel capable of, you can climb to the top too. I would say the things look beautiful from the top
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
simnia
posted 9/10/2012 22:16 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 9/10/2012 10:00:00 PM:
why do you always want to be at the bottom of the pyramid?
Because that's where all the pyramid power is focused. :-)
tkorrovi
posted 9/11/2012 02:46 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The problem in AI, immenseley more than anywhere else, this bottom of the pyramid is huge. We see so many stones, that we can never even see that it's a pyramid.
Whatever. I'm supposed to be a heartless technocrat, who is indifferent about everything human. And i'm the direct opposite, i don't even admire technology at all. This what i created, mostly came out of that conflict. Yes and out of that pain which that caused to me.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Topic: AI Project
Mohammad Arif
posted 8/19/2010 12:26 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I am student of AI. Please any one let me know about areas of AI research currently on going.
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 8/22/2010 17:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Please follow the link given below to an AI project.
AI has been solved.
tkorrovi
posted 8/22/2010 18:53 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi Arthur, cannot put aside that which you once did? In a way i understand, what we create is a part of us, whether we want it or not. Anyway, this is not unrestricted, so i don't have to deal with it, and don't have to take a point of view. Don't you want to do something else?
The reason why i did what i did was not merely solving a technical problem. I wanted to show that brain is not a reflex automaton or pre-programmed system, it is something completely different. And knowing that has a lot of implications to all human relations. A primitive automaton is worth nothing and needs nothing, humans need a very different world.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 8/22/2010 7:33:00 PM
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 8/23/2010 06:31 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi asks, "Don't you want to do something else?"
Persistence pays off, tkorrovi!
MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 August 19
Mohammad Arif
posted 8/23/2010 06:41 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
What is actually required is a project to be done in AI. Ideas in fact innovative ideas.
tkorrovi
posted 8/23/2010 09:11 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
> Persistence pays off, tkorrovi!
It is not always so.
Mohammad Arif, sorry for me talking with Arthur here. But about your question, there are over 3000 open source AI projects in SourceForge (link below), and you can join almost everyone of these.
SourceForge AI projects
Mohammad Arif
posted 8/23/2010 10:47 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Thanks @ Throkv.
Topic: Future of AI
Philosopher
posted 9/11/2007 09:40 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi, I have found an interesting article regarding the future of AI at artificialiblog.blogspot.com/.
The article discusses 'The Singularity' - a term used to describe this anticipated - or feared - day when machines become smart and perhaps ambitious enough to reprogram themselves.
What is interesting is that renowned researchers like Peter Norvig will be attending.
What is your views on this futuristic topic?
Future of AI
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/11/2007 12:42 Reply with quote
Unnecessary speculation.
will i dream
posted 9/12/2007 03:56 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi - do you believe ai might ever be created at all - have you given up?
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/12/2007 05:16 Reply with quote
Well i prefer to talk about how to create AI. But this "philosophy" is something like, what would i do if i had billion dollars.
Philosopher
posted 9/12/2007 07:52 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I don't think this topic is only fiction - the growth of technology has proven to be exponential (literally) over the past few decades. This is because technoglogy is used to create new technology. E.g. 40 years after the first airoplane we were able to travel to space.
If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.
I'm not saying that the Summit is inevitable; but we should at least consider the possibility even though the concept might seem far-fetched.
And a bit of philosophy have never hurt anyone...
uzeknw
posted 9/12/2007 08:07 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Philosopher wrote @ 9/12/2007 7:52:00 AM:
I don't think this topic is only fiction - the growth of technology has proven to be exponential (literally) over the past few decades. This is because technoglogy is used to create new technology. E.g. 40 years after the first airoplane we were able to travel to space.
If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.
I'm not saying that the Summit is inevitable; but we should at least consider the possibility even though the concept might seem far-fetched.
And a bit of philosophy have never hurt anyone...
... and we still don't have flying cars.
when true AI happens, it will not happen because of the growth in technology, it will happen because of a growth or a few growths in mind. It will happen because an individual or a few individuals thought differently. To think that the growth of technology will sooner or later be the cause of AI is to say that the reason AI doesn't exist is because technolgoy hasn't caught up yet to what is needed. The AI is a turing problem, at least as we approach it. Now, the problem we have is not that our turing machines are too slow but that we don't have any idea how to create the program.
Philosopher
posted 9/12/2007 08:30 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I was hinting at that when I noted that 'If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.'
I agree that growth of technology alone is not a cause for concern.
What is you views on the future of AI then?
ts
[Guest]
posted 9/12/2007 09:48 Reply with quote
that's a boring article. i find that john mccarthy's interview below more interesting.
Written by John McCarthy:
Q. Yes, but what is intelligence?
A. Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world. Varying kinds and degrees of intelligence occur in people, many animals and some machines.
you see tkorrovi, GOALS!
even plants have some intelligence because they do achieve some goals.
uzeknw
posted 9/12/2007 17:11 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Philosopher wrote @ 9/12/2007 8:30:00 AM:
I was hinting at that when I noted that 'If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.'
I agree that growth of technology alone is not a cause for concern.
What is you views on the future of AI then?
I believe it is possible. However, I am not concerned about the outcome. It's totally irrelevant to me, what I care about is for it to be done. Anything else that comes after that was meant to be.
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/12/2007 23:52 Reply with quote
Ts, yes, i see, goals. Yes plants may very well have these, they way how humen are better, is that they can develop their own goals. But we talked about the subject of goals a lot in another thread here, if one wants to discuss this subject any further, it's better to do it there
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/13/2007 00:06 Reply with quote
I mean, humans can develop their own goals, no particular goal is really enough to enable everything which humans can do, except that which comes from the general goal of achieving harmony with their environment.
lordjakian
posted 9/13/2007 04:55 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Its fun to skip a step and entertain what could be, but better it is to receive such words in an imaginative stride. To speak of it seriously.....well.....even in the article they spoke of controlling it in some manner. Bah on that.
I have to agree with Tkorrvi. Better to focus on the fundamentals in creating AI and expressing in what ways it is possible to create it and make it advanced, then to wonder about what the world will be like when the idea of it has been advanced farther along.
A lot of people on this site are beyond being awed about what is being imagined by scientists simply because they already have a good idea of the whole thing. Beyond the people who are layman or hobbyists, there are people here who fiddle with program design, neural nets, cyborg plants......Even have some who say they solved AI already.
Last edited by lordjakian @ 9/13/2007 5:12:00 AM
Philosopher
posted 9/13/2007 07:54 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Well, check out this site www.patternrecognition.co.za. This site is dedicated to pattern recognition which a key component to supervised learning. You can find source code there and a Java applet which you can use to classify data online.
I believe that finding an ultimate learning algorithm will be an important breakthrough in supervised learning. If we can improve learning algorithms, we will certainly be closer to AI.
There is also a nice applet that illustrates how an SVM classifier finds its decision boundaries to classifiy observations.
Hope this is technical enoough??
Pattern Recognition Resources
Arthur
[Guest]
posted 9/14/2007 15:56 Reply with quote
The future of AI rides piggyback upon Wikipedia.
Wikipedia-based Open-Source Artificial Intelligence
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/15/2007 00:11 Reply with quote
Yes one day, we maybe have to think how to use everyone, and we also cannot waste Arthur. He can be used as a promoter of open source AI, promoting is what he can do well
AngstPerpetual
posted 9/15/2007 19:17 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I agree. Use everyone. Don't waste Arthur.
AngstPerpetual
posted 9/15/2007 19:20 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Maybe we could even set up some sort of Arthur recycling plant so that no Arthur is wasted.
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/15/2007 20:49 Reply with quote
It seems that Arthur has his own recycling plants, as no matter what, he will be back again But then, there should be a place for him also, his programming skills are as they are, but there are things which he is also good at, especially his language and writing skills are good.
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/15/2007 21:30 Reply with quote
Do you want to say that there is some lunatics in that which Arthur used to talk about? The problem with that is that it's even not his own lunatics. it is the lunatics which the scientists used to tell. Though who told that, knew seemingly quite well what a nonsense it is, but Arthur happened to be a person unfortunate enough to believe it.
Topic: The Superluminal Mind
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/19/2012 18:29 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I have begun investigating applications in AI research of my math invention, the Tachyonics Operator, for modeling the conscious, subconscious, and "spiritual" aspects of humans, in terms of the interaction of the human brain with superluminal energy fields. The purpose is to simulate the same functions that occur naturally in the human brain in a man-made synthetic brain.
Positive initial results are reported: the operator can be used to generate an alternate-dimensional number system suitable for representing mental and metaphysical characteristics of the human brain; allowing rendering in the form of "hidden" algorithms that emulate such aspects in computer models of human brain functions.
Such models also provide insight into viable transfer functions that could enable the engineering of breakthrough microprocessors that translate the virtual models into physical reality.
Additional results will be posted as available.
Questions and comments are welcome.
altscience.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tachyonics_Operator_Explained
Richter's Tachyonics Operator
Last edited by Kurtus Maxumus @ 10/21/2012 3:33:00 AM
tkorrovi
posted 10/19/2012 22:50 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
There cannot be a thing called negative causality, this is a paradox. Thus, there cannot be tachyons.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/22/2012 00:26 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 10/19/2012 10:50:00 PM:
There cannot be a thing called negative causality, this is a paradox. Thus, there cannot be tachyons.
Adhereing to outdated paradigms does not help innovative thinking, but hinders it. For instance, the notion that causality cannot be violated may be true, as far as we can tell, in the "real" world we detect with ordinary senses and instruments, but the same rules may not apply in an alternate-dimensional universe, such as the superluminal universe that probably co-exists with the visible universe. Therein, tachyons likely do exist; perhaps many of them perfectly analogous to bradyons.
If, therefore, an invisible superluminal universe exists together with the visible universe, it stands to reason to wonder if some aspects of our physical existence are not also superluminal in nature, including the deep functions of the brain and the life-force of living creatures (including humans),
Relying on 100-year-old assumptions (comforting as they may be for defenders of the status quo) serve only to stiffle innovation and technological advancement. Is it not better to think of the future as full of free-thinking possibility, instead of being suppressed by old stick-in-the-mud dogma?
I would rather consider what could be, regardless of what has come before, rather than hamstringing my mind with erroneous assumptions, no matter how much reverence others may hold for older ideas.
But I am not a yougster. I am old school, all the way. Yet, there always comes a time when the old ideas outlive their usefulness, and newer bolder ideas must be considered for taking their place.
Besides, there are too many experiments in the growing trend of superluminal research to blithely ignore it all, by continuing to say "there cannot be tachyons". For one thing, it has been repeatedly shown by many modern researchers that Einstein's insistance on an invariant vacuum speed of light is not accurate. All natural constants are now known to vary in time, due to the changes in the overall universe as it expands (which also happens at an accelerating pace); and that includes lightspeed. It has also been proven that all the assumptions that followed from insisting that lightspeed is constant need no longer be strictly observed, given that we now know lightspeed is a variable paramater.
See:
Albrecht & Magueijo, article on the variable speed of light, Physical Review D 59, (1999) 043516.
And J.W. Moffat's article on same, International Journal of Modern Phsics, D2 (1993) 351.
Online, advance-search specific phrase: "variable speed of light", for additional information.
Tachyonics Implies Unification
tkorrovi
posted 10/22/2012 18:14 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Well, you said that your theory is based on tachyons, and tachyons assume negative causality. Negative causality is a logical paradox and thus it is never outdated, it does not depend on what the physical theory is. It is strange yes that some have started to say that my theory is "outdated", even to the point that the conventional AI theories are now "dated" again.
If you argue that negative causality is not a logical paradox, then think about this thought experiment. Say we have a button and a light. There is a timer which measures certain periods of time, say seconds. Now if we push the button down during such period of time, pushing of the button occurred in that period of time. Now the light shows whether the button will be pushed in the next period of time, so the device implements negative causality. Now consider that the light is off in some period of time and we push the button in the next period of time, then what the light showed us was wrong, and there is no negative causality.
I said tachyons are not possible because of negative causality, not because nothing can happen faster than light. The physical analogue of my theory is David Bohm theory (implicate order), and this is based on entanglement, which assumes not only something faster than light, but instant connections. In a way this goes further than your theory because your is still based on the conventional descriptions of physical systems, equations or operators as you say.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/22/2012 6:35:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 10/26/2012 18:25 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I'm sorry for talking here about intuition but, as you said that the speed is important, then maybe it somehow helps. A long time ago i read The City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke. Unfortunately no movie has been made based on this, and so there are many Hal's everywhere from 2001, but no Vanamonde's from The City and the Stars. Vanamonde, when he saw the spaceship coming from the Earth, went instantly to Earth at that moment. My intuition strongly said me that there is something very essential to consciousness in these instant movements. I wanted to create an AI (True AI) system, so i was not really interested in the physical part, but i felt that there is something which can help to make my program. I started to think what it could be, and thought i found the solution. Later i just happened to see the David Bohm theory, and i was surprised how similar what i thought was, to that.
I'm sorry that you have to read this, it is me who all the time wants to explain myself here, as i feel that no one understands me. You can do the same, maybe once we would understand each other. My criterion for True AI is that it has to be unrestricted in self-development.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/26/2012 6:29:00 PM
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/27/2012 01:03 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 10/26/2012 6:25:00 PM:
I'm sorry for talking here about intuition but, as you said that the speed is important, then maybe it somehow helps. A long time ago i read The City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke. Unfortunately no movie has been made based on this, and so there are many Hal's everywhere from 2001, but no Vanamonde's from The City and the Stars. Vanamonde, when he saw the spaceship coming from the Earth, went instantly to Earth at that moment. My intuition strongly said me that there is something very essential to consciousness in these instant movements. I wanted to create an AI (True AI) system, so i was not really interested in the physical part, but i felt that there is something which can help to make my program. I started to think what it could be, and thought i found the solution. Later i just happened to see the David Bohm theory, and i was surprised how similar what i thought was, to that.
I'm sorry that you have to read this, it is me who all the time wants to explain myself here, as i feel that no one understands me. You can do the same, maybe once we would understand each other. My criterion for True AI is that it has to be unrestricted in self-development.
No worries. And the long held position that tachyons violate causality is understandable. But current research on tachyons and other superluminal phenomena make it clear that the notion of tachyons is not about to go away.
Also, while Einstein's theory of Special Relativity can be interpreted as predicting the existence of tachyons, with reversed causality, it is no longer certain that Einstein's formulations are absolutely correct or complete, any more than Quantum Mechanics is complete. What is more, taking the que from the late Tom Van Flandern, who showed that gravity is superluminal in nature (but does not act infinitely fast), Einsteinian Relativity should be replaced with Lorentzian Relativity, to more correctly correspond to observed astronomical reality. And Lorentzian Relativity does not demand negative time for tachyons, or anything else traveling FTL.
Now, this might negate my version of a particle that explains quantum gravity, but that's OK, if some observation or experiment determines the actual quanta of gravity. But the Tachyonics Operator I devised is non-commital. It does not necessarily require Einsteinian Relativity. It is merely an evaluation used as a transformation function, and can be used by anyone who wants to impart superluminality to some quantity.
However, I am of the opinion that the incomplete nature of Einstein's formulations arise because of the non-specific way it treats superluminal frames. Note that it does not impose the analog of the same natural limits that exist for bradyons onto tachyons (i.e., they can travel at infinite speed or finite velocities above lightspeed). And that tells me it works fine for bradyonic frames, but does not get the FTL thing correct. It lacks something.
Also, Einstein's formulations depend on holding the vacuum speed of light as an invariant for all observers. But there are a number of reserachers who are pointing out that the lightspeed constant is not an absolute constant at all, nor are any of the other natural constants. They vary in time due to the accelerating expansion of the universe. That means Einstein's major premise is wrong, and thus leaves open the question of the nature of tachyons.
My contention is this. Tachyons of many kinds probably exist, and there is no telling what some of them do. There could be types with negative time (standard relativistic), and others with positive time (purely classical), and still others with properties we can't imagine yet. Consequently, if there indeed exist extra-dimensional manifolds, as part of the Multiverse in which the visible universe resides, then there are probably alternate-dimensional manifolds as well, such as a superluminal universe that co-exists with the visible universe.
And in that case, it is reasonable to quess that some aspects of our physical and metaphysical constructs, as humans, are superluminal in nature; including, for instance, the life-force of living creatures, and the deepest root of the human mind.
I envision various superluminal energy fields with which our physiology interacts, in order to generate things like automatic body functions, automatic brain functions, consciousness, a subconscious, and even "spiritual" attributes (taken strictly from a scientific perspective; no religion required).
As a result, it seems to me that if we want to get a machine to start actually thinking independently, with self-awareness, a discernment of the "flow" of time, conscious recall, and free will, just like we have, then the machines will also have to be designed to interact with the same superluminal energy fields. Otherwise, they will not really become "conscious" in the same way we are.
Does this make my ideas more palatable?
tkorrovi
posted 10/27/2012 21:00 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Kurtus Maxumus wrote @ 10/27/2012 1:03:00 AM:
Does this make my ideas more palatable?
It is not about palatable, it is all about the same thing. No matter where we start, if we go far enough, we reach the same.
I don't exactly know what is speed of light. There should be some kind of lattice in vacuum, maybe random and changing, but there is a minumum distance in quantum mechanics and thus movement is not possible without such lattice. Speed of light may be somthing like, moving through the lattice, step by step, we can go faster than that when we take more than one step at a time. Some say gravity is like a vacuum cleaner which sucks that lattice or such. Somehow everything should be a manifestation of David Bohm implicate order, some way all things should go together. And the more we know about it the better of course, we would understand more how the nature works.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
tkorrovi
posted 10/28/2012 12:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Lattice, i mean something like that below. I think though they make mistake by assuming that it is static, a "matrix", it is likely that boiling substance the vacuum consists of. Just that this change of the dimensionless system happens in a way that it enables movement from point A to point B in a way which corresponds to three dimensional space.
3D space also comes naturally of course, in that it is the minimal number of dimensions where every system can be implemented. The dimensionless system changes to a form where things become possible, something, then grows and stays in that form because it is a certain level of harmony.
Lattice
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 11/24/2012 17:54 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Further confirmation has been recieved from a high-level group, on interest in the Tachyonics Operator in synthetic brain research. They use it to model the sub-conscious.
I am posting here, on other forums, and have web-sites to inform researchers that the math is open-source, off-the-shelf, and easy to apply.
Don't let one firm corner the market on this concept.
The trick is to devise new kinds of imaginary units, generating alternate number systems which empirically represent/constitute alternate-dimensional manifolds.
Such new imaginaries are not necessarily extra standard imaginary-numbers, but must be conventionally defined as metaphysical in nature, or "actual" imaginaries, making them purely alternate-dimensional in character, mathematically speaking; with the primary forms interpreted as superluminal in nature.
Here is the math said private researchers are looking at. It is Relativistic Tachyonics.
tachyonicssociety.webstarts.com/?r=20121111180216
The question remains:
How do you model the conscious, sub-conscious, and "spiritual" aspects of the human brain in a way that allows implementation in a machine construct?
You have to give them self-aware minds, automatic sub-consious activity, and a sense of the flow of time, enabling additional metaphysics-based processes. To a machine, this all has to be put into numbers. Hence the operator.
The Tachyonics Society
Topic: Combining the programs...?
daniel.thiberge
posted 4/5/2011 20:49 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I was thinking, if all these programs are "smart" by themselves... than what would they be like together? My question is, could you combine the vocabulary databases of all the a-i bots? I think it would be really cool and a nice experiment. Tell me your thoughts on this idea. -Daniel
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 4/6/2011 01:10 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
If you combine enough English vocabulary databases, you get the English language as a whole.
AI Mind at Chatbots.org
tkorrovi
posted 4/6/2011 20:12 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
No, all these programs cannot be combined. And the reason is that they are not flexible enough for that and they don't fit together. And if we still would make an enormous system which includes all these, this system would not be fully functional and not flexible enough to utilize all knowledge. And cannot generate much new knowledge which is indispensable too, in the real world where everything constantly changes.
The most general principle is still that nothing can be extended beyond its base. So whatever complexity cannot provide whatever functionality. And increasing complexity alone is by far not enough. To enable more complexity, the system has to be made flexible enough for that from bottom up. No one can escape that principle no matter how much work one does.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 4/6/2011 8:36:00 PM
hunt
posted 4/7/2011 17:43 Reply with quote
It would be neat to see, Daniel. Two problems with such a project: 1) no common platform and 2) coordinating hierarchy.
For bots written with different structures, combining them might not be feasable. However, a sort of conglomerate Hal or AIML bot could be relatively painless to produce.
However, there is still hierarchy to deal with. When two or more of the combined bots give a different response, some other "master control program" must rank the responses. This was the approach IBM's Watson used, incidently. Many different codes were called simulateously and then sorted according to relevancy.
I remember seeing a bot that replied with four responses--one from each of four different wellknown chatbots. Can't seem to find it at the moment...
tkorrovi
posted 4/7/2011 19:35 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hunt, you are physicist, yet here you cannot think about theoretical problems. Please try not to think in the terms of applied science.
hunt
posted 4/8/2011 18:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi, I think Daniel was asking an applied question, which deserves a relevant answer. I don't believe he is necessarily interested in the finer points of strong AI (at least not in this instance), but rather the challenges and implications of combining existing software.
Last edited by hunt @ 4/8/2011 7:01:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 4/8/2011 20:08 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I think that Daniel did not ask an applied question only. He asked, can we combine the databases of all AI bots. I understand it was a question can we theoretically do it, and can we do it without limit. He did not ask how to combine the databases of two AI bots and what methods to use for that. Or his question was two fold and he wanted to know both.
Brain is a part of nature, and thus it is governed by laws of nature. When we create AI systems, these systems would be governed by the same laws.
I don't know how to explain it to you. The increase in quantity may not necessarily result in the change of quality without change of the whole system. Rather the increase of quantity mostly increase chaos. We cannot make universe out of whatever particles, because if it did consist of particles with certain different properties, the universe couldn't exist.
If one makes a theory in physics which contradicts the laws of nature, like to create some kind of perpentum mobile, this theory would be dismissed. Yet the efforts to create AI and ICT systems which contradict the laws of nature seem to be ok, and even funding can be granted for such efforts. Yet the nature of things is in both cases the same. Creating AI system which contradicts the general principles is in every way as absurd as creating a physical system which contradicts the laws of nature, one is not less absurd than the other, and both would not work. Both physics, AI and ICT have to comply to the laws of nature, thus it makes no sense whatsoever that one is called a fundamental science, and the other is called an applied science. This can only show some kind of lack of understanding.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 4/8/2011 8:14:00 PM
hunt
posted 4/8/2011 21:59 Reply with quote
tkorrovi, I guess we'll leave the scope of Daniel's question for him to address. I agree that "The increase in quantity may not necessarily result in the change of quality without change of the whole system." This is why I mentioned the problem of "hierarchy". One would have to introduce a separate system for governing the way in which the extant programs are used and integrated for the resulting product to be any better than its constituent parts. This is a challenging problem in its own right.
As for AI research, I think you are mistaken about the types of projects that tend to receive funding, both public and private. There is very little current research in formulating generalized AI. Most work is towards specific types of applied intelligent systems designed for specific goals. There is nothing fundamental about such pursuits. They straddle the applied science/engineering line. These are important and practical endeavors, but they are not designed to directly address questions concerning strong AI.
tkorrovi
posted 4/9/2011 00:48 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
hunt wrote @ 4/8/2011 9:59:00 PM:
As for AI research, I think you are mistaken about the types of projects that tend to receive funding, both public and private.
No i'm not mistaken. There are even projects which aim is literally to obtain every kind of information from every kind of sources, and some even think that this is the "way forward".
I have said nothing against projects for some restricted purpose, to the contrary, this is what most projects should be like. The problem is when they want to go too "high", without theoretically thinking about the feasibility of such task.
hunt
posted 4/9/2011 14:47 Reply with quote
I'm not familiar with such projects, but your assessment of them seems fair enough.
Topic: restrictedness or unrestrictedness that is the question;
maks
posted 10/29/2012 11:57 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Can we say that human mind is some sort as if unrestricted system? It's impossible to create an artificial
mind without device.First of all device.In other case you
create amoeba.And it's too well one step forward.
Sex is not Love.And up-to-date AI is't close to mind
at all.
tkorrovi
posted 10/29/2012 12:17 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The problem is that we have to create amoeba first, then we can put it in some sort of box.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
maks
posted 10/29/2012 12:46 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
It's a very big space from amoeba to mind
maks
posted 10/29/2012 12:56 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
There are another way to make Artificial mind and Artificial life -unite brain and electronics.Cyborg
maks
posted 10/30/2012 12:02 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
i'm feel like happy we can't to make artificial mind now and maybe in future too.There is now need to blast this
artificial bomb.It must exist as intricate
mechanism only .
maks
posted 10/30/2012 12:03 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
now-no
maks
posted 10/30/2012 14:39 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Entanglement is definitely one of the fallacy.
Change characteristic of entanglement particle before measuring other one and....
or other case do it simultaneously and...
tkorrovi
posted 10/30/2012 17:22 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Entanglement shows that the universe is not really 3D. Means 3D is a construct and entanglement is a manifestation of something more fundamental. Based on that David Bohm suggested that everything consists of entanglement only, what he called the implicate order.
Your question may be asked also, what is primary, unrestricted or restricted. And when asking the question like that, it seems to be obvious that unrestricted is primary and restricted is a special case.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/30/2012 5:31:00 PM
maks
posted 10/31/2012 06:13 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Befor David Bohm i'd became to the same opinion.
But it's a different sort of entenglement
And befor us all religion became very clothe to the same opinion.I want to say that physicists interprets there experimental results with ease.They have no possibility
to measure something and speculating about it freely.
maks
posted 10/31/2012 08:38 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The main princeple of life is- ones to appear it must survive.There is no any restrictedness to gain this goal.The same property has consciousness too .
tkorrovi idea give a hope for beginnings some sort of artificial life .It's a very first step toward AI but what problem is to apply it?
tkorrovi
posted 10/31/2012 20:07 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 10/31/2012 8:38:00 AM:
> The main princeple of life is- ones to appear it must survive.There is no any restrictedness to gain this goal.
Not entirely correct, this is very important, be very careful with that. Survival is not an inherent goal, thus this goal has to be pre-defined and the system made so that it tries to achieve that goal. And that restricts. Achieving an increasingly higher level of harmony is an inherent goal for some systems, thus nothing has to be pre-defined or pre-programmed specifically for that goal, thus this goal does not restrict. This goal is similar to survival and can be easily misinterpreted to be survival by these who don't think through all the subtleties. But it is not survival, and more than that, this goal gives a system certain additional abilities which the system which goal is survival doesn't have. One is that the system with that goal starts to actively explore its environment in order to achieve a higher level of harmony (general lack of conflict) with it. So also in a way that goal is dynamic, while the goal of survival is fixed.
> It's a very first step toward AI but what problem is to apply it?
There is no problem which prevents exploring it and doing experiments with it, i developed the program so far that i did experiments and so that all is there which is necessary to continue the research. And willingly stopped at that point. I stopped because of the only problem, lack of interest, so it will be stopped until there would be more interest and people who want to do that research. Then the research will continue.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
maks
posted 11/1/2012 06:58 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Sorry but what does it means to "achieve a higher level of harmony "when the best way to gain the harmony is to destroy your enemy.
The survival beget some sort of harmony and free will too well.Therefore there is threat of war wit Artificial Live
free will.If harmony suddenly will be ruined you'll must to get barrel. If i'm mistaken?
maks
posted 11/1/2012 07:48 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Ore maybe you have already one?
maks
posted 11/1/2012 08:05 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The military want to have intelligent systems.They have money they have force.They buy scientists.There are a lot of research doing there.It's will be good for us all to understand all consequences.
tkorrovi
posted 11/1/2012 20:47 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 11/1/2012 6:58:00 AM:
Sorry but what does it means to "achieve a higher level of harmony "when the best way to gain the harmony is to destroy your enemy.
Not exactly. Sometimes destroying the enemy would cause more problems than not destroying the enemy. Also enemy should be destroyed at the right time, one should not try to destroy it before that. And it may be better if one would not become an enemy, as enemy always means too much destruction.
Survival does not necessarily imply other goals, the problem with survival is that when an immediate survival can be achieved in an easy way, the system would not become more advanced, and would not even be able to deal with the problems of survival in the future. Achieving harmony includes survival, but survival does not necessarily include achieving harmony.
Well, the system below works, one can do experiments. One should know C to develop it, there are no such things in any other languages, though some can make one of course. One offered once to rewrite it in Lisp, but i don't think there were many, if any, who would like to work with it in Lisp.
Military is not interested in things like these. I have talked with some from the military, military needs things which it can use at once. In missiles, drones, etc. Military is not interested in fundamental research. Now one thinks yes, i will make practical things then, how smart i was in figuring that out. No it is not smart at all, i figured it out too, and found that making practical things brings one hopelessly far from doing an advanced theoretical research.
Btw, what concerns harware, i have heard that now there are optical computers, a lot faster than the electronic ones, so speed is finally not the issue.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 11/1/2012 8:54:00 PM
maks
posted 11/2/2012 06:57 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
It's all O'k but Curie Sklodowska, Marie did't guessed about A-bomb.It's a problem of science to jump into unknown headfirst,to jumpe into hellhole singularity.
What about military.No one of them have dreams to get a bruise on there face. They all dreams about something or somebody will do there work.
Free will artificial mind will born something awful.
Sorry for this letters not concerning C
tkorrovi
posted 11/2/2012 15:52 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 11/2/2012 6:57:00 AM:
Free will artificial mind will born something awful.
Create it.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
tkorrovi
posted 11/3/2012 17:46 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Maybe we will be killed after a year or so. I don't say it has to happen, maybe depends on us, but i don't exclude anything. Or just consider the possibility. Why not show our potential as humans, that we were capable of understanding everything.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
maks
posted 11/6/2012 11:54 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Thank you for your notice for human future
There is a lot speculations about our future.
Let it be.
There is no way to bound humans curiosity.
Maybe this is the one of driving forces for civilization (the same for consciousness).
We don't stop while we'll receive burn or been demolished.
Consciousness is not programmable thing on the low level.
It's to come into the world on its own and automatically.
Therefore unrestricted and self-development systems are promising start (as tkorrovi say us) to make artificial life and mind but not only its simulattion. There is no miracle at all.It'll manifest itself at the proper time.
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 11/6/2012 15:12 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The artificial AI Mind (click with MSIE on link below) is restricted with its limitation to English grammar but unrestricted in its ability to think an unlimited number of thoughts in English.
Artificial Mind with Artificial Intelligence
Topic: do we have the brain for AGI?
maks
posted 8/30/2012 13:40 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
To me there are no containers yet for AGI accommodation
it's a matter of future development.Topology of containers prop up consciousness .Other way it'll be only
mirage of consciousness .
tkorrovi
posted 8/30/2012 19:15 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Honestly, i don't understand what are you talking about. I think that the very term AGI is a misnomer. The system below is derived to be unrestricted self-developing system.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
simnia
posted 9/1/2012 08:12 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 8/30/2012 7:15:00 PM:
Honestly, i don't understand what are you talking about.
Ditto. This post sounds like a bot post: it doesn't make much sense, and the poster didn't answer your question. If "container" were defined as "physical embodiment" (e.g., neural network or digital computer program) the post would almost make sense (if you like a lot of vague comments about consciousness), but I've never heard that term used in conjunction with A.I., Google search doesn't bring up any applicable usage examples, and again the posting entity didn't bother to clarify. The fact that the user name is "skam" spelled backwards doesn't help.
Last edited by simnia @ 9/1/2012 7:40:00 PM
maks
posted 9/3/2012 13:06 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hello world!What a pity! i'm not a bot.i'm only engineer.
i think now about structure of elctronic brain.Up-to-date
computer technology can't to give oportunity to make true
AI.There is a lot of ways to make self-development
algorithm but not as like central nervous system powered
There is no any trace of consciousness in that algorithm.
tkorrovi
posted 9/3/2012 17:51 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 9/3/2012 1:06:00 PM:
There is no any trace of consciousness in that algorithm.
Trace of consciousness is when a system is able to implement aspects of consciousness, like prediction. I don't know when it can be called consciousness and when not, and it doesn't really matter. Say we have the mechanism necessary for consciousness, with that we can implement a calculator as well which has nothing to do with consciousness. Because such mechanism must sure be Turing complete.
A network with changing network topology. There can be such inside a neuron, likely not between neurons. Yes it has to be self-developing, but not every kind of self-developing will do.
You ask like a hundred questions at the time. Please read my project site below and read this forum to get more idea, think about it, then you can ask more specific questions.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Topic: Discussing a new definition of consciousness
trlstanc
posted 5/12/2011 16:49 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi all,
I created a new site to propose and discuss a definition of consciousness, one based on the brain creating a representation of the world.
I'd love to hear any questions/comments/suggestions, etc.
Conscious Thoughts
tkorrovi
posted 5/12/2011 22:41 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I remember in the early days of the internet there were forums, each about some topic. You wanted to know or talk about that topic, and all the people who were interested about that were there. Now there are blogs, knowledge is fragmented between different people's blogs, and no one ever would gather it all together and put it into one piece. I don't know what else can be done that way, but for research we need a whole picture, so the information should either be in one place, or at least there should be a good way to put it together.
For talking about AI, this forum here is the only place i have found. Though i well know that it is not perfect, i have no idea what would happen with the old messages in this forum, is it archived somewhere and whether there would come a day when this forum simply disappears, with no way to find anything which was discussed here, any more. But there is nothing to do, when there are no better options.
Topic: Emerald Tablet interpretation
tkorrovi
posted 9/23/2011 19:01 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
This is an interpretation of the Newton translation (1680), which is the translation of the Latin text in Theatrum Chemicum (1602). I wrote it in trying to show that my system can be derived from it. I can explain where every detail comes from, it is completely rational and the symbolism was well established, so certain words meant only certain things. Based on this interpretation, i have reasons to say that people who originally wrote it, knew much more than they said, because otherwise it is difficult to explain why they wrote only certain most important principles, and wrote them together in a short text.
These are the fundamental truths.
That which is on higher level is like that which is on lower level and vice versa, to manifest one interconnected whole.
All things have grown out from that whole and become what they are by adaptation.
The growth and reduction are main aspects of the fundamental system, and change and tendency toward greater harmony are inherent manifestations of these aspects.
That fundamental system is the force behind all reality.
Converting that force to physical level provides generality.
Separating the restrictive from creative and the subtle from the gross enables generality to spread.
The change of state and interaction between the fundamental and the physical level enables everything to develop.
One should now understand so much about the workings of nature, that it will be easy to see the truth from misleading.
The fundamental system is present everywhere, is inside everything, acts through everything, and what is true about it, is valid everywhere.
The reality is made following these principles, there is no other possibility.
These principles determine the processes by which the fundamental system forms into all things by adaptation.
This knowledge provides the three most fundamental philosophical principles, the growth, reduction, and interconnectedness.
This should be all that is necessary to fully understand the most fundamental in nature.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 9/23/2011 8:15:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 9/28/2011 11:44 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Some time ago, we were talking here about how the life began. I was a kind of perplexed then. But now i can say more. The most fundamental aspects of nature are growth and reduction, and indeed, the nature manifests them everywhere. We talked then that at the molecular level, there are many processes which can cause growth. But what we need for life to emerge are both growth and reduction. Growth with some sporadic reduction can result in self-development. There are many processes that cause reduction as well. What is necessary is a good combination of growth and reduction. I'm not a molecular biologist, but i think that such combination is not improbable.
These discussions here, in spite rather about remotely related things, still help me to develop my ideas further.
And Emerald Tablet, well, it was the cornerstone of the medieval science. Now rather forgotten. But it's better to know what the roots were.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 9/28/2011 5:50:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 12/11/2011 23:11 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I would try to explain you more what the principle of correspondence means regarding True AI. If it has to be unrestricted, it means that the basic mechanism has to be unrestricted. If it has to be interconnected, it means that the basic mechanism should be such that the system is interconnected. If nothing has to exist by itself, it means that the basic mechanism should not enable anything to exist by itself. Et cetera. And thus we know quite a lot about the basic mechanism, so that we can derive it.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
simnia
posted 9/9/2012 23:31 Reply with quote
This is pretty interesting, and I'm surprised I'd never heard of it before. The name alone sounds like some mystical or religious nonsense, which is off-putting, but if respected people like Isaac Newton saw and translated the document's contents, it really must have existed, even if it wasn't really written on a green stone or emerald in later years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet
The quote from this document, "The formation of the microcosm is in accordance with the formation of the macrocosm.", is an important principle of systems theory and of education that I largely learned from my own experience. To me it basically implies statements like "If you master one subject and its underlying principles, you will find the same underlying principles in any other subject" or "By examining even a microcosm (such as chess), you will learn about macrocosms (such as business success)."
Similarly, the quote "And all things sprang from this essence through a single projection." sounds like it's talking about the Big Bang, which wasn't known until modern times. Or reworded: "All things, large and small, operate according to the same natural laws." Very true.
My complaint about the Emerald Tablet text is exactly the same as my complaint about the Christian Bible or about very general philosophical works like Musashi's "The Book of Five Rings"...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Five_Rings
...or maybe the I Ching, namely, that the text contains a lot of wisdom from systems theory, but it is worded in such a general fashion that it is largely useless in practice. Its wisdom is *so* general that you can read just about any kind of interpretation into it. That means it is largely useless for making laws, making scientific discoveries, making day-to-day practical decisions, executing specific martial arts moves, and so on. In short, it's all strategy and no tactics. It would have been better if such a text were combined with specific examples of the generalities, or at least the intent and field to which it was intended.
For years I've been wanting to compile exactly such a book on wisdom and/or systems theory, and I still do, but I just don't have the time. There is a lot more I could write about systems theory, and the relationship between wisdom and knowledge (look up the DIKW spectrum, for example), and the relationship between strategy and tactics, but that would be off-topic for this thread.
Last edited by simnia @ 9/9/2012 11:39:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 9/10/2012 02:40 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
simnia wrote @ 9/9/2012 11:31:00 PM:
it is worded in such a general fashion that it is largely useless in practice.
It is general because the principles are general, these principles have to be general. But they cannot be interpreted in whatever way. Because as they are general, they also apply to everything. And this is a very strict condition, anything aimed to be general and any part of it always have to correspond to these principles.
General is what we have to deal with when we want to create True AI, specific is what we need when we want to make an AI for a specific purpose. I don't know what you expected such principles to be, general is what they have to be, or modeling such essential natural phenomena as life or human mind is not an aim.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 9/10/2012 4:37:00 AM
simnia
posted 9/10/2012 18:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 9/10/2012 2:40:00 AM:
I don't know what you expected such principles to be,
This is another topic that I tend to view as a hierarchy. In this case, specific examples would be at the bottom layer and representing the widest part of the pyramid, and at the top would be extremely general principles like "Everything goes somewhere, including the effects of any type of force" or "Anything will change over a long enough period of time", which would be at the narrowest part of the pyramid since those statements of universal applicability are fewer in number. But there is an entire spectrum of generality between. With increasing applicability you also get less specific knowledge. There is an inherent tradeoff in representations like that.
What I would expect from a really good text on general wisdom--or actually on any topic--would be the presence of all levels of generality at once so that the reader could see and understand the entire spectrum with minimal effort. That's what mastery of a topic is about, in my opinion.
In my experience, most mathematical textbooks go wrong with this, too: they present some theorem out of the blue, rigorously prove it, and then the reader is left thinking, "Well, that's nice, but so what? What good is this? Why does anybody care? How is this useful? What examples motivated somebody to go to all this work in the first place?" Then a weak math textbook will follow that theorem with some specific examples of how the theory can be applied, usually too few in number to give a real appreciation of the theorem, before launching into the student exercises that contain the most interesting and most useful examples. A bad math textbook will just immediately launch into student exercises with no examples whatsoever. To me the Emerald Tablet is like a bad math textbook: it presents some general theorems from out of the blue (out of the green?) and implies that the reader has to figure out for himself/herself how to apply them to real life.
I'll use chess as a domain to give a specific example of what I mean by layers of generality (using descriptive chess notation):
knowledge of extremely high generality:
The opening move usually highly influences the character of the ensuing game, regarding sharpness, speed, and endgame type.
If the first move is a knight move, the opening will usually transpose into a pawn opening that is better-known.
If the first move is a single square pawn advance, the opening tends to either transpose into a better-known pawn opening, or becomes defensive for the first player.
knowledge of fairly high generality:
1. P-K4 tends to lead to tactical games.
1. P-Q4 tends to lead to drawish games.
knowledge of medium generality:
The Four Knights Game tends to lead to a draw.
The Kings Gambit tends to lead to a highly tactical, interesting game.
knowledge of fairly high specificity:
The Symmetrical Variation of the Four Knights Game is almost guaranteed to end in a draw, especially if the players tend to make moves that retain pawn symmetry.
An even better text (which I don't have patience to provide here) would explain *why* each given statement is believed to be true.
Last edited by simnia @ 9/11/2012 6:48:00 AM
tkorrovi
posted 9/10/2012 22:00 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Everything you say to make it better. Why cannot you be the one who makes it better, why do you always want to be at the bottom of the pyramid? If this is where you want to be, then there you stay, you wanted it, none of your dreams can change that. I want to be at the top of the pyramid, and i stay there, if you ever want and feel capable of, you can climb to the top too. I would say the things look beautiful from the top
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
simnia
posted 9/10/2012 22:16 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 9/10/2012 10:00:00 PM:
why do you always want to be at the bottom of the pyramid?
Because that's where all the pyramid power is focused. :-)
tkorrovi
posted 9/11/2012 02:46 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The problem in AI, immenseley more than anywhere else, this bottom of the pyramid is huge. We see so many stones, that we can never even see that it's a pyramid.
Whatever. I'm supposed to be a heartless technocrat, who is indifferent about everything human. And i'm the direct opposite, i don't even admire technology at all. This what i created, mostly came out of that conflict. Yes and out of that pain which that caused to me.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Topic: AI Project
Mohammad Arif
posted 8/19/2010 12:26 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I am student of AI. Please any one let me know about areas of AI research currently on going.
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 8/22/2010 17:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Please follow the link given below to an AI project.
AI has been solved.
tkorrovi
posted 8/22/2010 18:53 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi Arthur, cannot put aside that which you once did? In a way i understand, what we create is a part of us, whether we want it or not. Anyway, this is not unrestricted, so i don't have to deal with it, and don't have to take a point of view. Don't you want to do something else?
The reason why i did what i did was not merely solving a technical problem. I wanted to show that brain is not a reflex automaton or pre-programmed system, it is something completely different. And knowing that has a lot of implications to all human relations. A primitive automaton is worth nothing and needs nothing, humans need a very different world.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 8/22/2010 7:33:00 PM
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 8/23/2010 06:31 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi asks, "Don't you want to do something else?"
Persistence pays off, tkorrovi!
MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 August 19
Mohammad Arif
posted 8/23/2010 06:41 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
What is actually required is a project to be done in AI. Ideas in fact innovative ideas.
tkorrovi
posted 8/23/2010 09:11 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
> Persistence pays off, tkorrovi!
It is not always so.
Mohammad Arif, sorry for me talking with Arthur here. But about your question, there are over 3000 open source AI projects in SourceForge (link below), and you can join almost everyone of these.
SourceForge AI projects
Mohammad Arif
posted 8/23/2010 10:47 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Thanks @ Throkv.
Topic: Future of AI
Philosopher
posted 9/11/2007 09:40 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi, I have found an interesting article regarding the future of AI at artificialiblog.blogspot.com/.
The article discusses 'The Singularity' - a term used to describe this anticipated - or feared - day when machines become smart and perhaps ambitious enough to reprogram themselves.
What is interesting is that renowned researchers like Peter Norvig will be attending.
What is your views on this futuristic topic?
Future of AI
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/11/2007 12:42 Reply with quote
Unnecessary speculation.
will i dream
posted 9/12/2007 03:56 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi - do you believe ai might ever be created at all - have you given up?
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/12/2007 05:16 Reply with quote
Well i prefer to talk about how to create AI. But this "philosophy" is something like, what would i do if i had billion dollars.
Philosopher
posted 9/12/2007 07:52 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I don't think this topic is only fiction - the growth of technology has proven to be exponential (literally) over the past few decades. This is because technoglogy is used to create new technology. E.g. 40 years after the first airoplane we were able to travel to space.
If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.
I'm not saying that the Summit is inevitable; but we should at least consider the possibility even though the concept might seem far-fetched.
And a bit of philosophy have never hurt anyone...
uzeknw
posted 9/12/2007 08:07 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Philosopher wrote @ 9/12/2007 7:52:00 AM:
I don't think this topic is only fiction - the growth of technology has proven to be exponential (literally) over the past few decades. This is because technoglogy is used to create new technology. E.g. 40 years after the first airoplane we were able to travel to space.
If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.
I'm not saying that the Summit is inevitable; but we should at least consider the possibility even though the concept might seem far-fetched.
And a bit of philosophy have never hurt anyone...
... and we still don't have flying cars.
when true AI happens, it will not happen because of the growth in technology, it will happen because of a growth or a few growths in mind. It will happen because an individual or a few individuals thought differently. To think that the growth of technology will sooner or later be the cause of AI is to say that the reason AI doesn't exist is because technolgoy hasn't caught up yet to what is needed. The AI is a turing problem, at least as we approach it. Now, the problem we have is not that our turing machines are too slow but that we don't have any idea how to create the program.
Philosopher
posted 9/12/2007 08:30 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I was hinting at that when I noted that 'If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.'
I agree that growth of technology alone is not a cause for concern.
What is you views on the future of AI then?
ts
[Guest]
posted 9/12/2007 09:48 Reply with quote
that's a boring article. i find that john mccarthy's interview below more interesting.
Written by John McCarthy:
Q. Yes, but what is intelligence?
A. Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world. Varying kinds and degrees of intelligence occur in people, many animals and some machines.
you see tkorrovi, GOALS!
even plants have some intelligence because they do achieve some goals.uzeknw
posted 9/12/2007 17:11 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Philosopher wrote @ 9/12/2007 8:30:00 AM:
I was hinting at that when I noted that 'If we should have a similar breakthrough in AI (like the airoplane in transportation), the singularity might be possible.'
I agree that growth of technology alone is not a cause for concern.
What is you views on the future of AI then?
I believe it is possible. However, I am not concerned about the outcome. It's totally irrelevant to me, what I care about is for it to be done. Anything else that comes after that was meant to be.
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/12/2007 23:52 Reply with quote
Ts, yes, i see, goals. Yes plants may very well have these, they way how humen are better, is that they can develop their own goals. But we talked about the subject of goals a lot in another thread here, if one wants to discuss this subject any further, it's better to do it there
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/13/2007 00:06 Reply with quote
I mean, humans can develop their own goals, no particular goal is really enough to enable everything which humans can do, except that which comes from the general goal of achieving harmony with their environment.
lordjakian
posted 9/13/2007 04:55 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Its fun to skip a step and entertain what could be, but better it is to receive such words in an imaginative stride. To speak of it seriously.....well.....even in the article they spoke of controlling it in some manner. Bah on that.
I have to agree with Tkorrvi. Better to focus on the fundamentals in creating AI and expressing in what ways it is possible to create it and make it advanced, then to wonder about what the world will be like when the idea of it has been advanced farther along.
A lot of people on this site are beyond being awed about what is being imagined by scientists simply because they already have a good idea of the whole thing. Beyond the people who are layman or hobbyists, there are people here who fiddle with program design, neural nets, cyborg plants......Even have some who say they solved AI already.
Last edited by lordjakian @ 9/13/2007 5:12:00 AM
Philosopher
posted 9/13/2007 07:54 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Well, check out this site www.patternrecognition.co.za. This site is dedicated to pattern recognition which a key component to supervised learning. You can find source code there and a Java applet which you can use to classify data online.
I believe that finding an ultimate learning algorithm will be an important breakthrough in supervised learning. If we can improve learning algorithms, we will certainly be closer to AI.
There is also a nice applet that illustrates how an SVM classifier finds its decision boundaries to classifiy observations.
Hope this is technical enoough??
Pattern Recognition Resources
Arthur
[Guest]
posted 9/14/2007 15:56 Reply with quote
The future of AI rides piggyback upon Wikipedia.
Wikipedia-based Open-Source Artificial Intelligence
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/15/2007 00:11 Reply with quote
Yes one day, we maybe have to think how to use everyone, and we also cannot waste Arthur. He can be used as a promoter of open source AI, promoting is what he can do well
AngstPerpetual
posted 9/15/2007 19:17 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I agree. Use everyone. Don't waste Arthur.
AngstPerpetual
posted 9/15/2007 19:20 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Maybe we could even set up some sort of Arthur recycling plant so that no Arthur is wasted.
tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/15/2007 20:49 Reply with quote
It seems that Arthur has his own recycling plants, as no matter what, he will be back again
But then, there should be a place for him also, his programming skills are as they are, but there are things which he is also good at, especially his language and writing skills are good.tkorrovi
[Guest]
posted 9/15/2007 21:30 Reply with quote
Do you want to say that there is some lunatics in that which Arthur used to talk about? The problem with that is that it's even not his own lunatics. it is the lunatics which the scientists used to tell. Though who told that, knew seemingly quite well what a nonsense it is, but Arthur happened to be a person unfortunate enough to believe it.
Topic: The Superluminal Mind
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/19/2012 18:29 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I have begun investigating applications in AI research of my math invention, the Tachyonics Operator, for modeling the conscious, subconscious, and "spiritual" aspects of humans, in terms of the interaction of the human brain with superluminal energy fields. The purpose is to simulate the same functions that occur naturally in the human brain in a man-made synthetic brain.
Positive initial results are reported: the operator can be used to generate an alternate-dimensional number system suitable for representing mental and metaphysical characteristics of the human brain; allowing rendering in the form of "hidden" algorithms that emulate such aspects in computer models of human brain functions.
Such models also provide insight into viable transfer functions that could enable the engineering of breakthrough microprocessors that translate the virtual models into physical reality.
Additional results will be posted as available.
Questions and comments are welcome.
altscience.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tachyonics_Operator_Explained
Richter's Tachyonics Operator
Last edited by Kurtus Maxumus @ 10/21/2012 3:33:00 AM
tkorrovi
posted 10/19/2012 22:50 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
There cannot be a thing called negative causality, this is a paradox. Thus, there cannot be tachyons.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/22/2012 00:26 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 10/19/2012 10:50:00 PM:
There cannot be a thing called negative causality, this is a paradox. Thus, there cannot be tachyons.
Adhereing to outdated paradigms does not help innovative thinking, but hinders it. For instance, the notion that causality cannot be violated may be true, as far as we can tell, in the "real" world we detect with ordinary senses and instruments, but the same rules may not apply in an alternate-dimensional universe, such as the superluminal universe that probably co-exists with the visible universe. Therein, tachyons likely do exist; perhaps many of them perfectly analogous to bradyons.
If, therefore, an invisible superluminal universe exists together with the visible universe, it stands to reason to wonder if some aspects of our physical existence are not also superluminal in nature, including the deep functions of the brain and the life-force of living creatures (including humans),
Relying on 100-year-old assumptions (comforting as they may be for defenders of the status quo) serve only to stiffle innovation and technological advancement. Is it not better to think of the future as full of free-thinking possibility, instead of being suppressed by old stick-in-the-mud dogma?
I would rather consider what could be, regardless of what has come before, rather than hamstringing my mind with erroneous assumptions, no matter how much reverence others may hold for older ideas.
But I am not a yougster. I am old school, all the way. Yet, there always comes a time when the old ideas outlive their usefulness, and newer bolder ideas must be considered for taking their place.
Besides, there are too many experiments in the growing trend of superluminal research to blithely ignore it all, by continuing to say "there cannot be tachyons". For one thing, it has been repeatedly shown by many modern researchers that Einstein's insistance on an invariant vacuum speed of light is not accurate. All natural constants are now known to vary in time, due to the changes in the overall universe as it expands (which also happens at an accelerating pace); and that includes lightspeed. It has also been proven that all the assumptions that followed from insisting that lightspeed is constant need no longer be strictly observed, given that we now know lightspeed is a variable paramater.
See:
Albrecht & Magueijo, article on the variable speed of light, Physical Review D 59, (1999) 043516.
And J.W. Moffat's article on same, International Journal of Modern Phsics, D2 (1993) 351.
Online, advance-search specific phrase: "variable speed of light", for additional information.
Tachyonics Implies Unification
tkorrovi
posted 10/22/2012 18:14 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Well, you said that your theory is based on tachyons, and tachyons assume negative causality. Negative causality is a logical paradox and thus it is never outdated, it does not depend on what the physical theory is. It is strange yes that some have started to say that my theory is "outdated", even to the point that the conventional AI theories are now "dated" again.
If you argue that negative causality is not a logical paradox, then think about this thought experiment. Say we have a button and a light. There is a timer which measures certain periods of time, say seconds. Now if we push the button down during such period of time, pushing of the button occurred in that period of time. Now the light shows whether the button will be pushed in the next period of time, so the device implements negative causality. Now consider that the light is off in some period of time and we push the button in the next period of time, then what the light showed us was wrong, and there is no negative causality.
I said tachyons are not possible because of negative causality, not because nothing can happen faster than light. The physical analogue of my theory is David Bohm theory (implicate order), and this is based on entanglement, which assumes not only something faster than light, but instant connections. In a way this goes further than your theory because your is still based on the conventional descriptions of physical systems, equations or operators as you say.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/22/2012 6:35:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 10/26/2012 18:25 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I'm sorry for talking here about intuition but, as you said that the speed is important, then maybe it somehow helps. A long time ago i read The City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke. Unfortunately no movie has been made based on this, and so there are many Hal's everywhere from 2001, but no Vanamonde's from The City and the Stars. Vanamonde, when he saw the spaceship coming from the Earth, went instantly to Earth at that moment. My intuition strongly said me that there is something very essential to consciousness in these instant movements. I wanted to create an AI (True AI) system, so i was not really interested in the physical part, but i felt that there is something which can help to make my program. I started to think what it could be, and thought i found the solution. Later i just happened to see the David Bohm theory, and i was surprised how similar what i thought was, to that.
I'm sorry that you have to read this, it is me who all the time wants to explain myself here, as i feel that no one understands me. You can do the same, maybe once we would understand each other. My criterion for True AI is that it has to be unrestricted in self-development.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/26/2012 6:29:00 PM
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/27/2012 01:03 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 10/26/2012 6:25:00 PM:
I'm sorry for talking here about intuition but, as you said that the speed is important, then maybe it somehow helps. A long time ago i read The City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke. Unfortunately no movie has been made based on this, and so there are many Hal's everywhere from 2001, but no Vanamonde's from The City and the Stars. Vanamonde, when he saw the spaceship coming from the Earth, went instantly to Earth at that moment. My intuition strongly said me that there is something very essential to consciousness in these instant movements. I wanted to create an AI (True AI) system, so i was not really interested in the physical part, but i felt that there is something which can help to make my program. I started to think what it could be, and thought i found the solution. Later i just happened to see the David Bohm theory, and i was surprised how similar what i thought was, to that.
I'm sorry that you have to read this, it is me who all the time wants to explain myself here, as i feel that no one understands me. You can do the same, maybe once we would understand each other. My criterion for True AI is that it has to be unrestricted in self-development.
No worries. And the long held position that tachyons violate causality is understandable. But current research on tachyons and other superluminal phenomena make it clear that the notion of tachyons is not about to go away.
Also, while Einstein's theory of Special Relativity can be interpreted as predicting the existence of tachyons, with reversed causality, it is no longer certain that Einstein's formulations are absolutely correct or complete, any more than Quantum Mechanics is complete. What is more, taking the que from the late Tom Van Flandern, who showed that gravity is superluminal in nature (but does not act infinitely fast), Einsteinian Relativity should be replaced with Lorentzian Relativity, to more correctly correspond to observed astronomical reality. And Lorentzian Relativity does not demand negative time for tachyons, or anything else traveling FTL.
Now, this might negate my version of a particle that explains quantum gravity, but that's OK, if some observation or experiment determines the actual quanta of gravity. But the Tachyonics Operator I devised is non-commital. It does not necessarily require Einsteinian Relativity. It is merely an evaluation used as a transformation function, and can be used by anyone who wants to impart superluminality to some quantity.
However, I am of the opinion that the incomplete nature of Einstein's formulations arise because of the non-specific way it treats superluminal frames. Note that it does not impose the analog of the same natural limits that exist for bradyons onto tachyons (i.e., they can travel at infinite speed or finite velocities above lightspeed). And that tells me it works fine for bradyonic frames, but does not get the FTL thing correct. It lacks something.
Also, Einstein's formulations depend on holding the vacuum speed of light as an invariant for all observers. But there are a number of reserachers who are pointing out that the lightspeed constant is not an absolute constant at all, nor are any of the other natural constants. They vary in time due to the accelerating expansion of the universe. That means Einstein's major premise is wrong, and thus leaves open the question of the nature of tachyons.
My contention is this. Tachyons of many kinds probably exist, and there is no telling what some of them do. There could be types with negative time (standard relativistic), and others with positive time (purely classical), and still others with properties we can't imagine yet. Consequently, if there indeed exist extra-dimensional manifolds, as part of the Multiverse in which the visible universe resides, then there are probably alternate-dimensional manifolds as well, such as a superluminal universe that co-exists with the visible universe.
And in that case, it is reasonable to quess that some aspects of our physical and metaphysical constructs, as humans, are superluminal in nature; including, for instance, the life-force of living creatures, and the deepest root of the human mind.
I envision various superluminal energy fields with which our physiology interacts, in order to generate things like automatic body functions, automatic brain functions, consciousness, a subconscious, and even "spiritual" attributes (taken strictly from a scientific perspective; no religion required).
As a result, it seems to me that if we want to get a machine to start actually thinking independently, with self-awareness, a discernment of the "flow" of time, conscious recall, and free will, just like we have, then the machines will also have to be designed to interact with the same superluminal energy fields. Otherwise, they will not really become "conscious" in the same way we are.
Does this make my ideas more palatable?
tkorrovi
posted 10/27/2012 21:00 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Kurtus Maxumus wrote @ 10/27/2012 1:03:00 AM:
Does this make my ideas more palatable?
It is not about palatable, it is all about the same thing. No matter where we start, if we go far enough, we reach the same.
I don't exactly know what is speed of light. There should be some kind of lattice in vacuum, maybe random and changing, but there is a minumum distance in quantum mechanics and thus movement is not possible without such lattice. Speed of light may be somthing like, moving through the lattice, step by step, we can go faster than that when we take more than one step at a time. Some say gravity is like a vacuum cleaner which sucks that lattice or such. Somehow everything should be a manifestation of David Bohm implicate order, some way all things should go together. And the more we know about it the better of course, we would understand more how the nature works.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
tkorrovi
posted 10/28/2012 12:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Lattice, i mean something like that below. I think though they make mistake by assuming that it is static, a "matrix", it is likely that boiling substance the vacuum consists of. Just that this change of the dimensionless system happens in a way that it enables movement from point A to point B in a way which corresponds to three dimensional space.
3D space also comes naturally of course, in that it is the minimal number of dimensions where every system can be implemented. The dimensionless system changes to a form where things become possible, something, then grows and stays in that form because it is a certain level of harmony.
Lattice
Kurtus Maxumus
posted 11/24/2012 17:54 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Further confirmation has been recieved from a high-level group, on interest in the Tachyonics Operator in synthetic brain research. They use it to model the sub-conscious.
I am posting here, on other forums, and have web-sites to inform researchers that the math is open-source, off-the-shelf, and easy to apply.
Don't let one firm corner the market on this concept.
The trick is to devise new kinds of imaginary units, generating alternate number systems which empirically represent/constitute alternate-dimensional manifolds.
Such new imaginaries are not necessarily extra standard imaginary-numbers, but must be conventionally defined as metaphysical in nature, or "actual" imaginaries, making them purely alternate-dimensional in character, mathematically speaking; with the primary forms interpreted as superluminal in nature.
Here is the math said private researchers are looking at. It is Relativistic Tachyonics.
tachyonicssociety.webstarts.com/?r=20121111180216
The question remains:
How do you model the conscious, sub-conscious, and "spiritual" aspects of the human brain in a way that allows implementation in a machine construct?
You have to give them self-aware minds, automatic sub-consious activity, and a sense of the flow of time, enabling additional metaphysics-based processes. To a machine, this all has to be put into numbers. Hence the operator.
The Tachyonics Society
Topic: Combining the programs...?
daniel.thiberge
posted 4/5/2011 20:49 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I was thinking, if all these programs are "smart" by themselves... than what would they be like together? My question is, could you combine the vocabulary databases of all the a-i bots? I think it would be really cool and a nice experiment. Tell me your thoughts on this idea. -Daniel
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 4/6/2011 01:10 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
If you combine enough English vocabulary databases, you get the English language as a whole.
AI Mind at Chatbots.org
tkorrovi
posted 4/6/2011 20:12 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
No, all these programs cannot be combined. And the reason is that they are not flexible enough for that and they don't fit together. And if we still would make an enormous system which includes all these, this system would not be fully functional and not flexible enough to utilize all knowledge. And cannot generate much new knowledge which is indispensable too, in the real world where everything constantly changes.
The most general principle is still that nothing can be extended beyond its base. So whatever complexity cannot provide whatever functionality. And increasing complexity alone is by far not enough. To enable more complexity, the system has to be made flexible enough for that from bottom up. No one can escape that principle no matter how much work one does.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 4/6/2011 8:36:00 PM
hunt
posted 4/7/2011 17:43 Reply with quote
It would be neat to see, Daniel. Two problems with such a project: 1) no common platform and 2) coordinating hierarchy.
For bots written with different structures, combining them might not be feasable. However, a sort of conglomerate Hal or AIML bot could be relatively painless to produce.
However, there is still hierarchy to deal with. When two or more of the combined bots give a different response, some other "master control program" must rank the responses. This was the approach IBM's Watson used, incidently. Many different codes were called simulateously and then sorted according to relevancy.
I remember seeing a bot that replied with four responses--one from each of four different wellknown chatbots. Can't seem to find it at the moment...
tkorrovi
posted 4/7/2011 19:35 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hunt, you are physicist, yet here you cannot think about theoretical problems. Please try not to think in the terms of applied science.
hunt
posted 4/8/2011 18:59 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi, I think Daniel was asking an applied question, which deserves a relevant answer. I don't believe he is necessarily interested in the finer points of strong AI (at least not in this instance), but rather the challenges and implications of combining existing software.
Last edited by hunt @ 4/8/2011 7:01:00 PM
tkorrovi
posted 4/8/2011 20:08 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I think that Daniel did not ask an applied question only. He asked, can we combine the databases of all AI bots. I understand it was a question can we theoretically do it, and can we do it without limit. He did not ask how to combine the databases of two AI bots and what methods to use for that. Or his question was two fold and he wanted to know both.
Brain is a part of nature, and thus it is governed by laws of nature. When we create AI systems, these systems would be governed by the same laws.
I don't know how to explain it to you. The increase in quantity may not necessarily result in the change of quality without change of the whole system. Rather the increase of quantity mostly increase chaos. We cannot make universe out of whatever particles, because if it did consist of particles with certain different properties, the universe couldn't exist.
If one makes a theory in physics which contradicts the laws of nature, like to create some kind of perpentum mobile, this theory would be dismissed. Yet the efforts to create AI and ICT systems which contradict the laws of nature seem to be ok, and even funding can be granted for such efforts. Yet the nature of things is in both cases the same. Creating AI system which contradicts the general principles is in every way as absurd as creating a physical system which contradicts the laws of nature, one is not less absurd than the other, and both would not work. Both physics, AI and ICT have to comply to the laws of nature, thus it makes no sense whatsoever that one is called a fundamental science, and the other is called an applied science. This can only show some kind of lack of understanding.
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 4/8/2011 8:14:00 PM
hunt
posted 4/8/2011 21:59 Reply with quote
tkorrovi, I guess we'll leave the scope of Daniel's question for him to address. I agree that "The increase in quantity may not necessarily result in the change of quality without change of the whole system." This is why I mentioned the problem of "hierarchy". One would have to introduce a separate system for governing the way in which the extant programs are used and integrated for the resulting product to be any better than its constituent parts. This is a challenging problem in its own right.
As for AI research, I think you are mistaken about the types of projects that tend to receive funding, both public and private. There is very little current research in formulating generalized AI. Most work is towards specific types of applied intelligent systems designed for specific goals. There is nothing fundamental about such pursuits. They straddle the applied science/engineering line. These are important and practical endeavors, but they are not designed to directly address questions concerning strong AI.
tkorrovi
posted 4/9/2011 00:48 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
hunt wrote @ 4/8/2011 9:59:00 PM:
As for AI research, I think you are mistaken about the types of projects that tend to receive funding, both public and private.
No i'm not mistaken. There are even projects which aim is literally to obtain every kind of information from every kind of sources, and some even think that this is the "way forward".
I have said nothing against projects for some restricted purpose, to the contrary, this is what most projects should be like. The problem is when they want to go too "high", without theoretically thinking about the feasibility of such task.
hunt
posted 4/9/2011 14:47 Reply with quote
I'm not familiar with such projects, but your assessment of them seems fair enough.
Topic: restrictedness or unrestrictedness that is the question;
maks
posted 10/29/2012 11:57 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Can we say that human mind is some sort as if unrestricted system? It's impossible to create an artificial
mind without device.First of all device.In other case you
create amoeba.And it's too well one step forward.
Sex is not Love.And up-to-date AI is't close to mind
at all.
tkorrovi
posted 10/29/2012 12:17 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The problem is that we have to create amoeba first, then we can put it in some sort of box.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
maks
posted 10/29/2012 12:46 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
It's a very big space from amoeba to mind
maks
posted 10/29/2012 12:56 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
There are another way to make Artificial mind and Artificial life -unite brain and electronics.Cyborg
maks
posted 10/30/2012 12:02 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
i'm feel like happy we can't to make artificial mind now and maybe in future too.There is now need to blast this
artificial bomb.It must exist as intricate
mechanism only .
maks
posted 10/30/2012 12:03 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
now-no
maks
posted 10/30/2012 14:39 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Entanglement is definitely one of the fallacy.
Change characteristic of entanglement particle before measuring other one and....
or other case do it simultaneously and...
tkorrovi
posted 10/30/2012 17:22 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Entanglement shows that the universe is not really 3D. Means 3D is a construct and entanglement is a manifestation of something more fundamental. Based on that David Bohm suggested that everything consists of entanglement only, what he called the implicate order.
Your question may be asked also, what is primary, unrestricted or restricted. And when asking the question like that, it seems to be obvious that unrestricted is primary and restricted is a special case.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/30/2012 5:31:00 PM
maks
posted 10/31/2012 06:13 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Befor David Bohm i'd became to the same opinion.
But it's a different sort of entenglement
And befor us all religion became very clothe to the same opinion.I want to say that physicists interprets there experimental results with ease.They have no possibility
to measure something and speculating about it freely.
maks
posted 10/31/2012 08:38 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The main princeple of life is- ones to appear it must survive.There is no any restrictedness to gain this goal.The same property has consciousness too .
tkorrovi idea give a hope for beginnings some sort of artificial life .It's a very first step toward AI but what problem is to apply it?
tkorrovi
posted 10/31/2012 20:07 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 10/31/2012 8:38:00 AM:
> The main princeple of life is- ones to appear it must survive.There is no any restrictedness to gain this goal.
Not entirely correct, this is very important, be very careful with that. Survival is not an inherent goal, thus this goal has to be pre-defined and the system made so that it tries to achieve that goal. And that restricts. Achieving an increasingly higher level of harmony is an inherent goal for some systems, thus nothing has to be pre-defined or pre-programmed specifically for that goal, thus this goal does not restrict. This goal is similar to survival and can be easily misinterpreted to be survival by these who don't think through all the subtleties. But it is not survival, and more than that, this goal gives a system certain additional abilities which the system which goal is survival doesn't have. One is that the system with that goal starts to actively explore its environment in order to achieve a higher level of harmony (general lack of conflict) with it. So also in a way that goal is dynamic, while the goal of survival is fixed.
> It's a very first step toward AI but what problem is to apply it?
There is no problem which prevents exploring it and doing experiments with it, i developed the program so far that i did experiments and so that all is there which is necessary to continue the research. And willingly stopped at that point. I stopped because of the only problem, lack of interest, so it will be stopped until there would be more interest and people who want to do that research. Then the research will continue.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
maks
posted 11/1/2012 06:58 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Sorry but what does it means to "achieve a higher level of harmony "when the best way to gain the harmony is to destroy your enemy.
The survival beget some sort of harmony and free will too well.Therefore there is threat of war wit Artificial Live
free will.If harmony suddenly will be ruined you'll must to get barrel. If i'm mistaken?
maks
posted 11/1/2012 07:48 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Ore maybe you have already one?
maks
posted 11/1/2012 08:05 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The military want to have intelligent systems.They have money they have force.They buy scientists.There are a lot of research doing there.It's will be good for us all to understand all consequences.
tkorrovi
posted 11/1/2012 20:47 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 11/1/2012 6:58:00 AM:
Sorry but what does it means to "achieve a higher level of harmony "when the best way to gain the harmony is to destroy your enemy.
Not exactly. Sometimes destroying the enemy would cause more problems than not destroying the enemy. Also enemy should be destroyed at the right time, one should not try to destroy it before that. And it may be better if one would not become an enemy, as enemy always means too much destruction.
Survival does not necessarily imply other goals, the problem with survival is that when an immediate survival can be achieved in an easy way, the system would not become more advanced, and would not even be able to deal with the problems of survival in the future. Achieving harmony includes survival, but survival does not necessarily include achieving harmony.
Well, the system below works, one can do experiments. One should know C to develop it, there are no such things in any other languages, though some can make one of course. One offered once to rewrite it in Lisp, but i don't think there were many, if any, who would like to work with it in Lisp.
Military is not interested in things like these. I have talked with some from the military, military needs things which it can use at once. In missiles, drones, etc. Military is not interested in fundamental research. Now one thinks yes, i will make practical things then, how smart i was in figuring that out. No it is not smart at all, i figured it out too, and found that making practical things brings one hopelessly far from doing an advanced theoretical research.
Btw, what concerns harware, i have heard that now there are optical computers, a lot faster than the electronic ones, so speed is finally not the issue.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 11/1/2012 8:54:00 PM
maks
posted 11/2/2012 06:57 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
It's all O'k but Curie Sklodowska, Marie did't guessed about A-bomb.It's a problem of science to jump into unknown headfirst,to jumpe into hellhole singularity.
What about military.No one of them have dreams to get a bruise on there face. They all dreams about something or somebody will do there work.
Free will artificial mind will born something awful.
Sorry for this letters not concerning C
tkorrovi
posted 11/2/2012 15:52 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 11/2/2012 6:57:00 AM:
Free will artificial mind will born something awful.
Create it.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
tkorrovi
posted 11/3/2012 17:46 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Maybe we will be killed after a year or so. I don't say it has to happen, maybe depends on us, but i don't exclude anything. Or just consider the possibility. Why not show our potential as humans, that we were capable of understanding everything.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
maks
posted 11/6/2012 11:54 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Thank you for your notice for human future
There is a lot speculations about our future.
Let it be.
There is no way to bound humans curiosity.
Maybe this is the one of driving forces for civilization (the same for consciousness).
We don't stop while we'll receive burn or been demolished.
Consciousness is not programmable thing on the low level.
It's to come into the world on its own and automatically.
Therefore unrestricted and self-development systems are promising start (as tkorrovi say us) to make artificial life and mind but not only its simulattion. There is no miracle at all.It'll manifest itself at the proper time.
AiHasBeenSolved
posted 11/6/2012 15:12 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
The artificial AI Mind (click with MSIE on link below) is restricted with its limitation to English grammar but unrestricted in its ability to think an unlimited number of thoughts in English.
Artificial Mind with Artificial Intelligence
Topic: do we have the brain for AGI?
maks
posted 8/30/2012 13:40 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
To me there are no containers yet for AGI accommodation
it's a matter of future development.Topology of containers prop up consciousness .Other way it'll be only
mirage of consciousness .
tkorrovi
posted 8/30/2012 19:15 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Honestly, i don't understand what are you talking about. I think that the very term AGI is a misnomer. The system below is derived to be unrestricted self-developing system.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
simnia
posted 9/1/2012 08:12 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 8/30/2012 7:15:00 PM:
Honestly, i don't understand what are you talking about.
Ditto. This post sounds like a bot post: it doesn't make much sense, and the poster didn't answer your question. If "container" were defined as "physical embodiment" (e.g., neural network or digital computer program) the post would almost make sense (if you like a lot of vague comments about consciousness), but I've never heard that term used in conjunction with A.I., Google search doesn't bring up any applicable usage examples, and again the posting entity didn't bother to clarify. The fact that the user name is "skam" spelled backwards doesn't help.
Last edited by simnia @ 9/1/2012 7:40:00 PM
maks
posted 9/3/2012 13:06 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hello world!What a pity! i'm not a bot.i'm only engineer.
i think now about structure of elctronic brain.Up-to-date
computer technology can't to give oportunity to make true
AI.There is a lot of ways to make self-development
algorithm but not as like central nervous system powered
There is no any trace of consciousness in that algorithm.
tkorrovi
posted 9/3/2012 17:51 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
maks wrote @ 9/3/2012 1:06:00 PM:
There is no any trace of consciousness in that algorithm.
Trace of consciousness is when a system is able to implement aspects of consciousness, like prediction. I don't know when it can be called consciousness and when not, and it doesn't really matter. Say we have the mechanism necessary for consciousness, with that we can implement a calculator as well which has nothing to do with consciousness. Because such mechanism must sure be Turing complete.
A network with changing network topology. There can be such inside a neuron, likely not between neurons. Yes it has to be self-developing, but not every kind of self-developing will do.
You ask like a hundred questions at the time. Please read my project site below and read this forum to get more idea, think about it, then you can ask more specific questions.
Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Topic: Discussing a new definition of consciousness
trlstanc
posted 5/12/2011 16:49 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi all,
I created a new site to propose and discuss a definition of consciousness, one based on the brain creating a representation of the world.
I'd love to hear any questions/comments/suggestions, etc.
Conscious Thoughts
tkorrovi
posted 5/12/2011 22:41 Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I remember in the early days of the internet there were forums, each about some topic. You wanted to know or talk about that topic, and all the people who were interested about that were there. Now there are blogs, knowledge is fragmented between different people's blogs, and no one ever would gather it all together and put it into one piece. I don't know what else can be done that way, but for research we need a whole picture, so the information should either be in one place, or at least there should be a good way to put it together.
For talking about AI, this forum here is the only place i have found. Though i well know that it is not perfect, i have no idea what would happen with the old messages in this forum, is it archived somewhere and whether there would come a day when this forum simply disappears, with no way to find anything which was discussed here, any more. But there is nothing to do, when there are no better options.