Standards in Artificial Intelligence

Discussion in 'C++' started by Arthur T. Murray, Sep 10, 2003.

  1. Arthur T. Murray, Sep 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence
    > is at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html --
    > updated today.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dave
     
    David B. Held, Sep 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Arthur T. Murray

    White Wolf Guest

    Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
    service provider.
     
    White Wolf, Sep 12, 2003
    #3
  4. "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
    > "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence
    >> is at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html --
    >> updated today.


    > [...] In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
    > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.


    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.

    > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
    > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
    > ports on a server. [...]


    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis explains
    that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary (enVocab) module
    to form an English lexical node for any new word detected
    by the Audition module in the stream of user input.

    > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
    > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
    > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
    > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
    > irrelevant. [...]


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

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

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

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

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

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

    A.T. Murray
    --
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
    http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- review by Dr. Ben G.
    http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN Notices.
     
    Arthur T. Murray, Sep 12, 2003
    #4
  5. Arthur T. Murray

    Guest Guest

    In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <> wrote:
    > Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
    > service provider.


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

    --arne
     
    Guest, Sep 12, 2003
    #5
  6. "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
    > [...]
    > > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
    > > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.

    >
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.


    Brittle. Language-specific. Non-scalable. You are trying
    to build something "intelligent", aren't you?

    > > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
    > > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
    > > ports on a server. [...]

    >
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
    > explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
    > (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
    > new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
    > user input.


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

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

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

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

    Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
    up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.

    > > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
    > > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
    > > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
    > > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
    > > irrelevant. [...]

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


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

    > The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
    > ambitious.


    There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
    you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
    I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
    look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
    too much fibre for me to digest.

    > Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
    > languages:


    If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
    However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
    C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
    least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
    that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
    being (b)led by the blind.

    > [...]
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
    > "Mind.VB #001" link.


    This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
    even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
    already has a higher IQ than you.

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


    Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
    and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
    cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
    you any day of the week.

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


    And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
    crossover, selection, and mutation?

    > AI has been solved in theory


    LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
    illegal, because it's obviously great stuff!

    > and in primitive, free AI source code.


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

    10 PRINT "Hello, world!"

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

    > Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
    > and proliferate.


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

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

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

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

    Dave
     
    David B. Held, Sep 13, 2003
    #6
  7. Arthur T. Murray

    White Wolf Guest

    wrote:
    > In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <> wrote:
    >> Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for
    >> a new service provider.

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


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

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

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

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

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

    --
    WW aka Attila
     
    White Wolf, Sep 13, 2003
    #7
  8. Arthur T. Murray

    Buster Guest

    "White Wolf" <> wrote

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


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

    Regards, Buster
     
    Buster, Sep 13, 2003
    #8
  9. Arthur T. Murray

    White Wolf Guest

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

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


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

    --
    WW aka Attila
     
    White Wolf, Sep 13, 2003
    #9
  10. White Wolf wrote:
    >
    >
    > Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
    > the charter of this newsgroup:
    >
    > "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
    > discussion
    > of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
    > ANSI/ISO
    > language standard. "
    >


    [cross-posts removed]

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

    -Kevin
    --
    My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
    To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.
     
    Kevin Goodsell, Sep 14, 2003
    #10
  11. Arthur T. Murray

    White Wolf Guest

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

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


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

    --
    WW aka Attila
     
    White Wolf, Sep 14, 2003
    #11
  12. Arthur T. Murray

    Steve Holden Guest

    "White Wolf" <> wrote in message
    news:bk07cm$hfs$...
    > Buster wrote:
    > > "White Wolf" <> wrote
    > >
    > >> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then
    > >> look at the charter of this newsgroup:
    > >>
    > >> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
    > >> discussion
    > >> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
    > >> ANSI/ISO
    > >> language standard. "

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

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

    far.
    >


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

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

    regards
    --
    Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
    Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/
     
    Steve Holden, Sep 14, 2003
    #12
  13. Arthur T. Murray

    White Wolf Guest

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


    *PLONK*
    --
    WW aka Attila
     
    White Wolf, Sep 14, 2003
    #13
  14. Arthur T. Murray

    Steve Holden Guest

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

    >
    > *PLONK*



    Ooh, that *hurts*. Not.

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

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

    Have a nice day.

    regards
    --
    Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
    Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/
     
    Steve Holden, Sep 14, 2003
    #14
  15. "David B. Held" wrote on Sat, 13 Sep 2003:
    >> > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
    >> > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.

    ATM:
    >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.

    DBH:
    > Brittle.

    ATM:
    You are right. It is precariously brittle. That brittleness
    is part of the "Grand Challenge" of building a viable AI Mind.
    First we have to build a brittle one, then we must trust the
    smarter-than-we-are crowd to incorporate fault-tolerance.
    DBH:
    > Language-specific.

    ATM:
    Do you mean "human-language-specific" or "programming-language"?
    With programming-language variables, we have to start somewhere,
    and then we let adventitious AI coders change the beginnings.
    With variables that lend themselves to polyglot human languages,
    we achieve two aims: AI coders in non-English-speaking lands
    will feel encouraged to code an AI speaking their own language;
    and AI Minds will be engendered that speak polyglot languages.
    Obiter dictu -- the Mentifex "Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind" --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html -- features
    a plausible explanation of how to implant multiple Chomskyan
    syntaxes and multiple lexicons within one unitary AI Mind.
    The AI textbook AI4U page 35 on the English language module --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/english.html -- and
    the AI textbook AI4U page 77 on the Reify module --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/reify.html -- and the
    AI textbook AI4U page 93 on the English bootstrap module --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html -- all show
    unique and original diagrams of an AI Mind that contains
    the thinking apparatus for multiple human languages --
    in other words, an AI capapble of Machine Translation (MT).

    DBH:
    > Non-scalable.

    ATM:
    Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we attain
    critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then we scale up.

    DBH:
    > You are trying to build something "intelligent", aren't you?

    ATM:
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html -- Machine...
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- Intelligence.

    DBH:
    > > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
    > > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
    > > ports on a server. [...]

    ATM:
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
    > explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
    > (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
    > new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
    > user input.


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

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


    http://www.semaphorecorp.com/misc/shrdlu.html -- by T. Winograd?

    > but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
    > do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
    > quick look at something you wrote:


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

    > Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
    > "uniconceptual filaments"?

    ATM:
    Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.

    > "conceptual minigrids"?

    ATM:
    Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or minigrid
    distributed across the entire mindgrid, for massive redundancy --
    which affords security or longevity of concepts, and which
    also aids in massively parallel processing (MPP).

    > "massively parallel aggregate"?



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


    Ha! You're funny there! <grin>

    > Here's the real cheerleading right here:


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

    > Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
    > up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.


    >> > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
    >> > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
    >> > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
    >> > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
    >> > irrelevant. [...]

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


    > The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
    > have not given enough detail to build a working model.

    ATM:
    If the AI coder has an opportunity to go beyond 32-bit and
    use a 64-bit machine, then he/she/it ought to do it, because
    once we arrive at 64-bits (for RAM), we may stop a while.

    > It's like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
    > then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
    > 8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
    > will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
    > big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
    > single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
    > project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
    > of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
    > you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
    > than one processor, huh?

    ATM:
    The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis) may
    preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."

    > I suppose you think the Sony
    > "Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
    > could feel human?


    >> The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
    >> ambitious.


    > There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
    > you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
    > I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
    > look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
    > too much fibre for me to digest.


    >> Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
    >> languages:


    > If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
    > However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
    > C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
    > least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
    > that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
    > being (b)led by the blind.


    >> [...]
    >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
    >> "Mind.VB #001" link.


    > This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
    > even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
    > already has a higher IQ than you.


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


    > Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
    > and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
    > cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
    > you any day of the week.


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


    > And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
    > crossover, selection, and mutation?

    ATM:
    http://www.seedai.e-mind.org tries to track each new species
    of AI Mind. We do _not_ want standard Minds; we only wish
    to have some standards in how we go about coding AI Minds.

    >> AI has been solved in theory


    > LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
    > illegal, because it's obviously great stuff!


    > > and in primitive, free AI source code.


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


    > 10 PRINT "Hello, world!"


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


    >> Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
    >> and proliferate.


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


    > 1) How does consciousness work?

    ATM:
    Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is fooled
    into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_ conscious.

    > 2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
    > that I do? How do we know?


    ATM:
    You've got me there. Qualia totally non-plus me :(

    > 3) How are long-term memories formed?


    ATM:
    Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes* LTM.

    > 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract reasoning?


    ATM:
    Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain funding.
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - $send____.

    > 5) How does language work?


    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U.

    > 6) How do emotions work?


    ATM:
    By the influence of physiological "storms" upon ratiocination.

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


    > Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
    > misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
    > alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
    > the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
    > claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human


    IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.

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


    > Dave


    Arthur
    --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ AI Weblog
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
    http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
    http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth
     
    Arthur T. Murray, Sep 15, 2003
    #15
  16. Arthur T. Murray

    Terry Reedy Guest

    "David B. Held" <> wrote in message
    news:bjuh6u$bg9$...
    > "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
    > > [...]


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

    Terry J. Reedy
     
    Terry Reedy, Sep 15, 2003
    #16
  17. "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > DBH:
    > > Brittle.

    > ATM:
    > You are right. It is precariously brittle. That brittleness
    > is part of the "Grand Challenge" of building a viable AI
    > Mind. First we have to build a brittle one, then we must
    > trust the smarter-than-we-are crowd to incorporate fault-
    > tolerance.


    You have cross-posted this to comp.ai.neural-nets, but
    you obviously don't understand neural nets, or you would
    know that a distributed representation is not brittle.

    > DBH:
    > > Language-specific.

    > ATM:
    > Do you mean "human-language-specific" or
    > "programming-language"?


    Human language, of course. Your system is very Anglo-
    centric. I suppose that's because you probably only
    know English, but it seems ridiculous to me to define
    a standard for intelligence in terms of one language.

    > With programming-language variables, we have to
    > start somewhere,


    Why not start at the solution? You said that "AI had
    been solved in theory". Why can't you apply that
    theory to produce a sophisticated AI on the first go?

    > and then we let adventitious AI coders change the
    > beginnings.


    "Change the beginnings"?

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


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

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

    If you feel there isn't enough detail to accomplish the task,
    you know what I feel like when I look at your diagrams.

    > DBH:
    > > Non-scalable.

    > ATM:
    > Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we
    > attain critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then
    > we scale up.


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

    > [...]
    > DBH:
    > Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is
    > embarrassingly underspecified, the notion of indexing
    > words is just silly.
    > ATM:
    > Nevertheless, here at the dawn of AI (flames? "Bring 'em
    > on.")


    Ok, I'll oblige you...I wish something would "dawn" on you!

    > we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve
    > fibers, and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start
    > somewhere.


    LOL!! Have you considered an artificial neural network
    design? They have been studied for decades, have well-
    known and desirable properties, and look nothing like
    what you propose in your "theory". They have their own
    set of problems, but it looks to me like you have no idea
    what they are or how they work. One thing they do well
    is content-addressable memory. That means that instead
    of finding entities via numerical index, you find them via
    their features.

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

    >
    > http://www.semaphorecorp.com/misc/shrdlu.html -- by
    > T. Winograd?


    Using Google so far is your only demonstrated skill. I
    respect that more than anything you've had to say.

    > [...]
    > > "uniconceptual filaments"?

    > ATM:
    > Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.


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

    In fact, real neurons store information in the *connections*.
    That is, the pattern of configuration and the synaptic weights.
    But it's ridiculous that I should have to explain this to
    someone who has "solved AI in theory". Whereas you could
    not use your fiber theory to build one useful working model,
    Rosenblatt already built a working model about half a century
    ago showing that connection strengths *could* lead to useful
    computation. How can you call this the "dawn of AI" when
    you haven't even solved a single toy problem, and people
    50 years ago who are long dead have solved numerous ones?
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but you don't even
    have pudding yet! (Or maybe that's all you have...)

    > > "conceptual minigrids"?

    > ATM:
    > Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or
    > minigrid distributed across the entire mindgrid, for
    > massive redundancy -- which affords security or longevity
    > of concepts, and which also aids in massively parallel
    > processing (MPP).


    This is all well and good, but until you define how fibers
    "coalesce", it doesn't *mean* anything. You also don't
    explain how MPP occurs, or why concepts would be
    insecure or short-lived.

    > [...]
    > > The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
    > > have not given enough detail to build a working model.

    > ATM:
    > If the AI coder has an opportunity to go beyond 32-bit and
    > use a 64-bit machine, then he/she/it ought to do it, because
    > once we arrive at 64-bits (for RAM), we may stop a while.
    > [...]
    > ATM:
    > The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis)
    > may preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."


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

    > [...]
    > > 1) How does consciousness work?

    > ATM:
    > Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is
    > fooled into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_
    > conscious.


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

    Attention is almost certainly a necessary condition for
    consciousness, but it is hardly sufficient. Someone just
    posted on this newsgroup a "Quine" program for C++.
    That is a program which produces its own source as
    the output. Is that sufficient "attention"? Is that program
    "conscious"? What about a bacterium that is aware of
    its chemical and luminous environment, and attends to
    each in turn. Is such a bacterium conscious? Your
    definition is woefully indiscriminate and incomplete.

    > > 2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees
    > > red that I do? How do we know?

    >
    > ATM:
    > You've got me there. Qualia totally non-plus me :(


    Really? They are exactly the reason that an AI needs a
    body. And I guarantee that any theory of AI which does
    not address qualia in some way will not be taken
    seriously by anyone who studies cognitive science. Even
    people who don't believe in qualia (like Dennett)
    acknowledge that it must be addressed.

    > > 3) How are long-term memories formed?

    >
    > ATM:
    > Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes*
    > LTM.


    "Probably"? So if you asked Newton: "What is the ballistic
    trajectory of a cannonball absent air resistance", you would
    be satisfied with: "Probably some polynomial curve"? If
    Newton claimed to have a complete theory of mechanics,
    *I*, for one, would not be satisfied with such a nebulous
    answer. Neither am I satisfied with such a vague answer
    from someone who claims to have "solved AI in theory".
    The formation of long-term memories is such a fundamental
    operation of intelligent agents that to treat it so non-chalantly
    betrays nothing but a contempt for serious cog. sci. work.
    After all, the formation of long-term memories is obviously
    critical to *learning*, and an entity that couldn't learn could
    barely be said to be intelligent.

    > > 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract
    > > reasoning?

    >
    > ATM:
    > Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain
    > funding. http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26
    > - $send____.


    Ah, I see. So you reply to a question about the one feature
    of intelligence that separates man from other creatures with
    a single term, and then have the audacity to ask for money???
    Humans engage in far more than syllogistic reasoning. You
    should at least know what other types of reasoning exist.

    > > 5) How does language work?

    >
    > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
    > -- AI4U.


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

    Customers who shopped for this item also shopped for these items:
    a.. Hidden Order by John H. Holland
    b.. The Career Programmer by Christopher Duncan
    c.. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken
    I'm not sure why customers who shopped for your book
    also shopped for Al Franken's book, but it seems to be a
    rather humorous juxtaposition. Anyway, I certainly am not
    going to pay $30 to have you give me some hare-brained
    idea of how language works.

    > > 6) How do emotions work?

    >
    > ATM:
    > By the influence of physiological "storms" upon
    > ratiocination.


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

    If you want a much better explanation of how emtions
    work, you should really check out Damasio's work. It
    is at least as engaging as your "storms" explanation, and
    is backed by actual neurological studies.

    > [...]
    > > Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
    > > misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
    > > alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
    > > the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
    > > claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human

    >
    > IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.
    > [...]


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

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

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

    Dave
     
    David B. Held, Sep 15, 2003
    #17
  18. "David B. Held" wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003:
    [...]
    >> ATM:
    >> Do you mean "human-language-specific" or
    >> "programming-language"?

    DBH:
    > Human language, of course. Your system is
    > very Anglo-centric. I suppose that's because
    > you probably only know English,

    ATM:
    +German +Russian +Latin +Greek
    [Saepe circumambulo cogitans Latine; ergo scio me esse.]

    > but it seems ridiculous to me to define a
    > standard for intelligence in terms of one language.

    ATM:
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html
    merely uses English to discuss polyglot AI Minds.

    >> With programming-language variables, we have to
    >> start somewhere,

    DBH:
    > Why not start at the solution? You said that "AI had
    > been solved in theory". Why can't you apply that
    > theory to produce a sophisticated AI on the first go?

    ATM:
    Implementations of the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind at
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html are hard to do.

    Having written AI in REXX, Forth and JavaScript, now I seek help in
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ with new AI code;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/java.html -- see Mind.JAVA #1 & #2;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/lisp.html -- Lisp AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html -- first Perl module;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/prolog.html -- Prolog AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/python.html -- Python AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ruby.html -- Ruby AI Blog (OO AI);
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/scheme.html -- Scheme AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see "Mind.VB #001" link.
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/scheme.html -- Scheme AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see "Mind.VB #001" link.

    >> and then we let adventitious AI coders change the
    >> beginnings.

    DBH
    > "Change the beginnings"?

    ATM:
    The whole idea of standards for coding non-standard AI diversity
    is that, along each branch of AI Mind evolution, the implementers
    are free to change any module, any choice of variables, and any
    theoretical consideration, for the sake of survival of the fittest.

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

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


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


    > If you feel there isn't enough detail to accomplish the task,
    > you know what I feel like when I look at your diagrams.

    ATM:
    One reaon the AI4U book may prove to be valuable over time is
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ 35 diagrams.

    >> DBH:
    >> > Non-scalable.

    >> ATM:
    >> Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we
    >> attain critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then
    >> we scale up.


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

    [...] ATM:
    >> we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve
    >> fibers, and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start
    >> somewhere.


    > LOL!! Have you considered an artificial neural network
    > design? They have been studied for decades, have well-
    > known and desirable properties, and look nothing like
    > what you propose in your "theory". They have their own
    > set of problems, but it looks to me like you have no idea
    > what they are or how they work. One thing they do well
    > is content-addressable memory. That means that instead
    > of finding entities via numerical index, you find them via
    > their features.

    ATM:
    Over the years I have actually been afraid to learn too much
    about artificial neural networks (ANN) because they might
    subtly introduce an improper or flawed mindset into my thinking.
    Meanwhile the Mentifex AI Minds in Forth and JavaScript
    turned out to be their own form of associative neural net.

    [...]
    >> > "uniconceptual filaments"?

    >> ATM:
    >> Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.

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

    ATM:
    As you go on to elaborate below, of course the neuronal fiber
    holds a concept by storing information in the *connections*.

    The novel, original-contribution of the Mentifex AI theory at
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory3.html is how to
    organize conceptual fibers into two layers below the surface:
    a deep-structure layer where thinking occurs by dint of
    "spreading activation" from Psi concept to Psi concept; and
    a shallow lexical area where lexical (vocabulary) fibers
    control words stored in the surface area of auditory memory.

    > In fact, real neurons store information in the *connections*.
    > That is, the pattern of configuration and the synaptic weights.
    > But it's ridiculous that I should have to explain this to
    > someone who has "solved AI in theory". Whereas you could
    > not use your fiber theory to build one useful working model,
    > Rosenblatt already built a working model about half a century
    > ago showing that connection strengths *could* lead to useful
    > computation. How can you call this the "dawn of AI" when
    > you haven't even solved a single toy problem, and people
    > 50 years ago who are long dead have solved numerous ones?
    > The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but you don't even
    > have pudding yet! (Or maybe that's all you have...)


    >> > "conceptual minigrids"?

    >> ATM:
    >> Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or
    >> minigrid distributed across the entire mindgrid, for
    >> massive redundancy -- which affords security or longevity
    >> of concepts, and which also aids in massively parallel
    >> processing (MPP).

    DBH:
    > This is all well and good, but until you define
    > how fibers "coalesce", it doesn't *mean* anything.

    ATM:
    If I had only one fiber or "grandmother cell" to hold
    the concept of my Czech-speaking grandmother Anna,
    the reliability of the concept would be impaired and
    at risk, because the single fiber could easily die.
    But if we imagine a new fiber being assigned to the
    concept of "Anna" everytime we use the concept, so that
    over time a redundancy of grandmother cells accrues,
    then each concept becomes a minigrid within a mindgrid.

    DBH:
    > You also don't explain how MPP occurs, or why
    > concepts would be insecure or short-lived.


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

    [...]
    >> ATM:
    >> The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis)
    >> may preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."

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

    ATM:
    We have heard a lot of talk about portions of the Internet
    coming together to form one giant "Global Brain" in distributed
    processing. Uneasiness ensues among us "neurotheoreticians."
    How would you like it if your own brain-mind were distributed
    across several earthly continents, with perhaps one lunar lobe,
    and old engrams stored four light years away at Alpha Centauri?

    The problem is continuity and the proper mesh of associations
    during the "spreading activation" process. On one local computer,
    functioning as the "brain" element of the "brain-mind" duality,
    we may expect a successful fine-tuning of the cascades and
    meanderings of associations from local concept to local concept.
    I don't mind if knowledge base (KB) data are stored remotely,
    because then it just seems that it took a while to remember
    something (say, the name and SSAN of any given American, TIA),
    but I want the actual thinking to occur SNAP! ZAP! CRACKLE!
    right here *locally* on the quasi-cranial local mindgrid.

    >> [...]
    >> > 1) How does consciousness work?

    >> ATM:
    >> Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is
    >> fooled into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_
    >> conscious.

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

    ATM:
    http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html is my summary.

    > Attention is almost certainly a necessary condition for
    > consciousness, but it is hardly sufficient. Someone just
    > posted on this newsgroup a "Quine" program for C++.
    > That is a program which produces its own source as
    > the output. Is that sufficient "attention"? Is that program
    > "conscious"? What about a bacterium that is aware of
    > its chemical and luminous environment, and attends to
    > each in turn. Is such a bacterium conscious? Your
    > definition is woefully indiscriminate and incomplete.

    ATM:
    Consciousness is no longer the problem that it used to be.
    When an AI Mind becomes aware of itself -- voila!

    >> > 3) How are long-term memories formed?

    >>
    >> ATM:
    >> Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes*
    >> LTM.

    DBH:
    > "Probably"? So if you asked Newton: "What is the ballistic
    > trajectory of a cannonball absent air resistance", you would
    > be satisfied with: "Probably some polynomial curve"? If
    > Newton claimed to have a complete theory of mechanics,
    > *I*, for one, would not be satisfied with such a nebulous
    > answer. Neither am I satisfied with such a vague answer
    > from someone who claims to have "solved AI in theory".
    > The formation of long-term memories is such a fundamental
    > operation of intelligent agents that to treat it so non-chalantly
    > betrays nothing but a contempt for serious cog. sci. work.
    > After all, the formation of long-term memories is obviously
    > critical to *learning*, and an entity that couldn't learn could
    > barely be said to be intelligent.

    ATM:
    Since I use Occam's Razor (and I know it by heart in the original
    "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.") in the
    theory and design of AI minds, I shy away from distinguishing
    too much between "short-term memory" (STM) and long-term (LTM).
    I strongly suspect that memory engrams are laid down seriatim
    without regard to STM and LTM distinctions made by humans,
    and that the STM-LTM distinctions are artificial distinctions
    connected more with *access* to memory than engrammation of memory.
    (I could be proved wrong, but it won't really matter much.)

    >> > 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract
    >> > reasoning?

    >>
    >> ATM:
    >> Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain
    >> funding. http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26
    >> - $send____.


    > Ah, I see. So you reply to a question about the one feature
    > of intelligence that separates man from other creatures with
    > a single term, and then have the audacity to ask for money???
    > Humans engage in far more than syllogistic reasoning. You
    > should at least know what other types of reasoning exist.

    ATM:
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ai4udex.html#reasoning shows
    imagistic, logical and syllogistic as mentioned in the AI4U book.

    >> > 5) How does language work?

    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
    >> -- AI4U.


    [...]
    >> > 6) How do emotions work?

    >>
    >> ATM:
    >> By the influence of physiological "storms" upon
    >> ratiocination.

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


    > If you want a much better explanation of how emtions
    > work, you should really check out Damasio's work. It
    > is at least as engaging as your "storms" explanation, and
    > is backed by actual neurological studies.

    ATM:
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/emotion.html is my take
    (AI4U page 80, Chapter 19) on the side-issue of emotions.

    >> [...]
    >> > Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
    >> > misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
    >> > alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
    >> > the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
    >> > claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human

    >>
    >> IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.
    >> [...]

    DBH:
    > Oh, so you had a hard time understanding: "You're a crank;
    > defend yourself"? Somehow, that doesn't suprise me.

    ATM:
    In <bjnqsa$snd$> you stated the question with:
    > You recognize the obvious fact that
    > the sensory modalities must be handled by
    > specialized hardware, but then you seem to think that
    > the rest of the brain is a "tabula rasa".

    ATM:
    I seem to myself to think that any brain-mind,
    natural or artificial, will turn out to be
    vast amounts of memory storage supervised and
    controlled by relatively small intellectual structures.

    > To see why
    > that is utterly wrong, you should take a look at Pinker's
    > latest text by the same name (The Blank Slate).
    > The reason the ACT-R model is a *collection* of
    > models, rather than a single model, is very simple.
    > All of the best research indicates that the brain is
    > not a general-purpose computer, but rather a
    > collection of special-purpose devices, each of which
    > by itself probably cannot be called "intelligent".


    DBH <bk4rab$jl3$>:
    > Now, you say that you are serious. But, only serious researchers
    > can admit that they are wrong. So, let's put your theory to
    > the falsifiability test. What would it take to convince you
    > that your fiber theory is wrong? Be careful, because if you
    > say: "Nothing", then you expose yourself for the dogmatic
    > crackpot that you are. And if you give some implausible
    > test, then your theory will be viewed as being useless, since
    > it can't be tested.


    > So that leaves you with providing a legitimate test. But
    > this is where you are stuck, because real theories make
    > predictions, and it is those predictions which are tested.
    > Since your theory makes no predictions, you won't be
    > able to propose a reasonable test of it.

    ATM:
    My theory predicts prescriptively how to make artificial minds.

    > So I will do it
    > for you. Why don't we pit your theory against all the
    > other theories which were put forth during the *real*
    > "dawn of AI". Why don't you use your theory to describe
    > a solution to chess playing, checkers playing, simple
    > letter recognition, theorem proving, or any problem for
    > which a historical symbolic AI solution exists.

    ATM:
    Brute force techniques in chess are not genuine AI.
    Checkers is a deterministic game. For pattern recognition,
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/audrecog.html is my work.
    Theorem proving, I'll grant you, I missed out on.

    > This seems
    > like a rather fair challenge, since I'm only asking you
    > to do as much as *WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED*.

    ATM:
    Let's do something new for a change. Let's code AI in
    many different programming languages and let's let evolve
    not only the AI Minds but cummunities of AI adepts to
    tend to the AI Minds and nurture them into full maturity.

    > If you fail to solve even one of these problems with
    > your theory, then it should leave you to wonder if
    > your state of AI really isn't more than 50 years behind
    > the times. Given the state of hardware today,
    > I expect you to be able to solve several of the
    > given problems in the same AI.

    ATM:
    OK, we'll take on consciousness; emotion; reasoning;
    dreaming (but not yet hypnosis); and superintelligence.

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

    ATM:
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html is at Sensorium.

    > Good luck, and I look forward to the validation of your
    > grand theory!

    ATM:
    Thank you. Your contributions here will go down in history,
    and future graduate students (hum/rob) will study your mind.
    > Dave


    Arthur
    --
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
    http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
    http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth
     
    Arthur T. Murray, Sep 15, 2003
    #18
  19. Arthur T. Murray

    Hank Oredson Guest

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

    Get this OUT of comp.arch please.

    --

    ... Hank

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

    "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <drivel removed>
     
    Hank Oredson, Sep 15, 2003
    #19
  20. "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David B. Held" wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2003:
    > > Human language, of course. Your system is
    > > very Anglo-centric. I suppose that's because
    > > you probably only know English,

    >
    > +German +Russian +Latin +Greek
    > [Saepe circumambulo cogitans Latine; ergo scio
    > me esse.]


    In that case, giving named concepts a numerical index is
    an exercise in futility, since there is no 1-1 mapping
    between words and concepts in different languages. For
    example, if the word "FahrvergnYgen" has an index of
    93824 in the geVocab module, what index(es) does that
    correspond to in the enVocab module?

    > [...]
    > Implementations of the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind
    > at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html are hard
    > to do.


    Yes indeed, but not for the reasons you think. They are
    hard to do because they are underspecified, not because
    the model is complex. In fact, the problem is that the
    model is too *simple*. *That* is what makes an
    implementation "hard to do".

    > Having written AI in REXX, Forth and JavaScript,


    But not a mentifax mind-whole wheat celery AI?

    > now I seek help


    It's about time!

    > in
    > [...]


    Your list repeats a few lines. Maybe the help wasn't so good.
    I guess that's what you consider "advertising".

    > [...]
    > One reaon the AI4U book may prove to be valuable
    > over time is
    > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
    > 35 diagrams.


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

    You've reduced intelligence to 35 diagrams, but you were
    the first one. Simply amazing. Your own intelligence must
    be truly dizzying.

    > [...]
    > Over the years I have actually been afraid to learn too
    > much about artificial neural networks (ANN) because they
    > might subtly introduce an improper or flawed mindset into
    > my thinking.


    LOL!!! If you are that weak-minded, perhaps you shouldn't
    be reading anything at all. That is a very convenient excuse
    for being wholly ignorant of the state-of-the-art.

    > Meanwhile the Mentifex AI Minds in Forth and
    > JavaScript turned out to be their own form of associative
    > neural net.


    You mean the "non-function" form?

    > [...]
    > As you go on to elaborate below, of course the neuronal
    > fiber holds a concept by storing information in the
    > *connections*.


    You're the only person I know that calls them "fibers".
    Everyone else calls them "neurons" or "units". When you
    say "fiber", it makes me think you are talking about the
    axon, and don't really understand how neurons work.

    > The novel, original-contribution of the Mentifex AI theory
    > at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory3.html is how to
    > organize conceptual fibers into two layers below the
    > surface: a deep-structure layer where thinking occurs by
    > dint of "spreading activation" from Psi concept to Psi
    > concept; and a shallow lexical area where lexical
    > (vocabulary) fibers control words stored in the surface
    > area of auditory memory.


    LOL!!! Well, that's all very poetic, but not very useful for
    building an intelligent artifact. I would hardly describe a
    separate semantic and syntactic system for natural language
    processing a "novel, original contribution". Such a thing is
    so obvious that even a rank novice in AI would probably
    *start* with such a structure if designing a natural language
    system.

    > [...]
    > > This is all well and good, but until you define
    > > how fibers "coalesce", it doesn't *mean* anything.

    >
    > If I had only one fiber or "grandmother cell" to hold
    > the concept of my Czech-speaking grandmother Anna,
    > the reliability of the concept would be impaired and
    > at risk, because the single fiber could easily die.
    > But if we imagine a new fiber being assigned to the
    > concept of "Anna" everytime we use the concept, so
    > that over time a redundancy of grandmother cells
    > accrues, then each concept becomes a minigrid within
    > a mindgrid.


    LOL!!! This just gets better and better!!! Somehow,
    you have managed to take an argument for distributed
    representation, and provide the most ridiculous,
    simplistic solution imaginable! You are the first person
    I have encountered that believes simple redundancy of
    local information has any merit whatsoever. Most
    people follow up the grandmother cell argument with a
    description of distributed representations in neural
    networks, but it is obvious that you don't know how
    those work.

    > [...]
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html#masspar
    > describes how massively redundant elements in the
    > brain-mind provide an unbroken chain of massively
    > parallel processing.


    No it doesn't. It does nothing of the sort.

    > It is really an elegant beauty in the theory -- how the
    > maspar fibergrids send maspar associative tags over
    > to acoustic engrams stored with massive redundancy
    > in audition.


    If it is a beauty, then you should spend some time
    describing it in depth...with examples.

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


    LOL!!! You cannot possibly be serious!!! If I thought
    you were actually intelligent, I would chalk this up to
    satire.

    > The problem is continuity and the proper mesh of
    > associations during the "spreading activation" process.
    > On one local computer, functioning as the "brain" element
    > of the "brain-mind" duality, we may expect a successful
    > fine-tuning of the cascades and meanderings of
    > associations from local concept to local concept.


    Umm...unless you simulate the fibers in hardware, you are
    going to have to use a serialization strategy for simulating
    your network. In that case, adding processors *increases*
    the responsiveness of the network.

    > I don't mind if knowledge base (KB) data are stored
    > remotely, because then it just seems that it took a while
    > to remember something (say, the name and SSAN of
    > any given American, TIA), but I want the actual thinking
    > to occur SNAP! ZAP! CRACKLE! right here *locally*
    > on the quasi-cranial local mindgrid.


    I think your mindgrid has already suffered too many SNAP!
    ZAP! CRACKLE!s.

    > [...]
    > http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html is my summary.


    The fact that you sum up consciousness in 4 weak,
    meaningless paragraphs is surpassed only by the fact
    that you can't spell "conscius" [sic].

    > [...]
    > Consciousness is no longer the problem that it used to
    > be. When an AI Mind becomes aware of itself -- voila!


    What does it mean for an AI to be aware of itself? What
    does it mean for an AI to be aware? If I point a video
    camera at a t.v. which displays the input to the video
    camera, is the camera aware of itself? Is it conscious?
    Consciousness is only a non-problem for people who
    live in very small worlds.

    > [...]
    > I strongly suspect that memory engrams are laid down
    > seriatim without regard to STM and LTM distinctions
    > made by humans, and that the STM-LTM distinctions
    > are artificial distinctions connected more with *access*
    > to memory than engrammation of memory. (I could be
    > proved wrong, but it won't really matter much.)


    Since you don't even know how memory works in the
    first place, I would say that you're already wrong. I
    suppose you think that brains remember everything they
    experience.

    > [...]
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ai4udex.html#reasoning
    > shows imagistic, logical and syllogistic as mentioned in the
    > AI4U book.


    Guess what? I tried out your Javascript AI, and it was at
    least as smart as you. You must have uploaded your own
    reasoning skills, because I typed in "Arthur is dumb", and the
    AI spat out a stream of babbling nonsense like: "I know
    Arthur I am dumb Arthur am dumb I am" I thought it was
    beautiful and profound, and that the AI was trying to tell me
    something important. Oh, I didn't detect any use of syllogistic
    reasoning in its output, which leads me to conclude that
    you don't know how to implement syllogistic reasoning,
    let along any other form of reasoning. And I would be
    extremely impressed if you could describe how to
    implement syllogistic reasoning of a general nature in a
    neural network.

    > [...]
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/emotion.html is my take
    > (AI4U page 80, Chapter 19) on the side-issue of emotions.


    LOL@"side issue". Once again, we see a childlike
    simplicity in your understanding. Emotion is fundamental
    to consciousness, but this notion from the latest research
    has completely eluded your grasp.

    > [...]
    > I seem to myself to think that any brain-mind, natural
    > or artificial, will turn out to be vast amounts of memory
    > storage supervised and controlled by relatively small
    > intellectual structures.


    Already you are proven wrong. Virtually any cognitive
    study using MRI can show that much of the brain is *not*
    engaged in *memory*, but in *computation*.

    > [...]
    > My theory predicts prescriptively how to make artificial
    > minds.


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

    > [...]
    > Brute force techniques in chess are not genuine AI.


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

    > [...]
    > Checkers is a deterministic game.


    So is go, but nobody has written an AI that can beat the
    best humans.

    > For pattern recognition,
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/audrecog.html is my
    > work.


    Umm...I see a link to source code, but I don't know Forth,
    so I can't tell if the code does anything interesting. Perhaps
    you can post a session with input and the program output.
    I need a good laugh, though you've been quite generous
    and provided me with many already.

    > [...]
    > Let's do something new for a change. Let's code AI in
    > many different programming languages and let's let evolve
    > not only the AI Minds but cummunities of AI adepts to
    > tend to the AI Minds and nurture them into full maturity.


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

    www.arthur-t-murray-is-a-crackpot.com/mentifax/mentos

    > [...]
    > OK, we'll take on consciousness; emotion; reasoning;
    > dreaming (but not yet hypnosis); and superintelligence.


    Will you have a working prototype before I'm dead and
    decomposed?

    > [...]
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html is at Sensorium.


    LOL!!! There's nothing there worth looking at!

    > [...]
    > Thank you. Your contributions here will go down in history,
    > and future graduate students (hum/rob) will study your mind.


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

    Dave
     
    David B. Held, Sep 16, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. White Wolf
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    416
    Terry Reedy
    Sep 15, 2003
  2. Arthur T. Murray

    Re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

    Arthur T. Murray, Sep 17, 2003, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    405
    Arthur T. Murray
    Sep 17, 2003
  3. tommak
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    441
    Kenneth P. Turvey
    Jul 4, 2006
  4. tommak
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    338
    Terry Hancock
    Jul 4, 2006
  5. tommak
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    tommak
    Jul 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page