One topic that often comes up is perception vs. measurements.
"If you can't measure it with common, existing measurements it isn't real."
This idea is and always will be flawed. Mind you, maybe what you perceive is not worth $1, but this is not how science works. I'm reminded of how many doctors and scientists fought against modernizing polio interventions, and how only recently did the treatment for stomach ulcers change radically due to the curiosity of a pair of forensic scientists.
Perception precedes measurement. In between perception and measurement is (always) transference to visual data. Lets take an example.
You are working on phone technology shortly after Bell invents the telephone. You hear one type of transducer sounds better than another. Why is that? Well, you have to figure out some way to see it (literally), via a scope, a charting pen, something that tells you in an objective way why they are different, that allows you to set a standard or goal and move towards it.
This person probably did not set out to measure all possible things. Maybe the first thing they decide to measure is distortion, or perhaps frequency response. After visualizing the raw data the scientist then has to decide what the units are, and how to express differences. Lets say it is distortion. In theory, there could have been a lot of different ways to measure distortion. Such as Vrms - Vrms (expected) /Hz. Depending on the engineer's need at the time, that might have been a perfectly valid way to measure the output.
But here's the issue. This may work for this engineer solving this time, and we may even add it to the cannon of common measurements, but we are by no means done.
So, when exactly are we done?? At 1? 2? 5? 30? The answer is we are not. There are several common measurements for speakers for instance which I believe should be done more by reviewers:
- Compression - Intermodulation ( IM ) Distortion - Distortion
and yet, we do not. IM distortion is kind of interesting because I had heard about it before from M&K's literature, but it reappeared for me in the blog of Roger Russel ( http://www.roger-russell.com ) formerly from McIntosh. I can't find the blog post, but apparently they used IM distortion measurements to compare the audibility of woofer changes quite successfully.
Here's a great example of a new measurement being used and attributed to a sonic characteristic. Imagine the before and after. Before using IM, maybe only distortion would have been used. They were of course measuring impedance and frequency response, and simple harmonic distortion, but Roger and his partner could hear something different not expressed in these measurements, so, they invent the use of it here. That invention is, in my mind, actual audio science.
The opposite of science would have been to say "frequency, impedance, and distortion" are the 3 characteristics which are audible, forever. Nelson pass working with the distortion profile, comparing the audible results and saying "this is an important feature" is also science. He's throwing out the normal distortion ratings and creating a whole new set of target behavior based on his experiments. Given the market acceptance of his very expensive products I'd say he's been damn good at this.
What is my point to all of this? Measurements in the consumer literature have become complacent. We've become far too willing to accept the limits of measurements from the 1980's and fail to develop new standard ways of testing. As a result of this we have devolved into camps who say that 1980's measures are all we need, those who eschew measurements and very little being done to show us new ways of looking at complex behaviors. Some areas where I believe measurements should be improved:
The effects of vibration on ss equipment
Capacitor technology
Interaction of linear amps with cables and speaker impedance.
We have become far too happy with this stale condition, and, for the consumers, science is dead.
a non biological device that can repair or reconfigure itself.
The theory of self replicating machine is 70 years old and come from Von Neumann....
A self replicating automata is not necessarily intelligent...
I cannot explain to you my "artificial soul" theory....Because you really think that machine can replicate life then having "soul".... Or real intelligence...Your faith is not mine....And remember that Science is evolutive faith nothing more except for superstitious man...
I am just the only person in this thread not applying magical properties to biological "things"
Another non sense, do you know how biology and chemistry are dependent on quantum mechanics ?
You think that a living system is made of " matter" ? You lived in the wrong century...
If quantum mechanic is not in a metaphorical way "magic" then why Feynman say that someone who understand quantum mechanic is a lier?
All living systems are "magical" in the sense that they are not reducible to the second law of thermodynamics Schrodinger think precisely that....
Their source of information are complex and not only analog or digital but symbolic and more than that the source of information for all living system is the same, this fact guide Schrodinger to think that consciousness is an absolute singular and that all consciousness are linked together like the angle of a one circle....
The neurons in our brain are very low precision. In all your examples, you equated sensitivity with precision and they are not remotely the same thing.
Precision is something that can be attributed to a measurement process...
Sensitivity something attributed to the instrument itself, relative to some "precise" range threshold measurement...
Heaudio123 seems to be the only one on earth thinking he got our brain all figured out while everybody else on earth all scratching their heads trying to figure out. Logically if you got something all figured out, then it means you should be able to duplicate it.
Something as basic as to why "sleep" is so important, but nobody can agree on it or even understand why. Along the same line, no machine on earth that can create a living cell. I mean we can understand genetic code and gene duplication and we can use electron magnifying glass to peer deep into the cell structure, still nobody can duplicate a living cell in the lab. Maybe we should start with this instead of trying to duplicate the brain.
Another thing is sure if you think that Penrose thesis defend the point that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain you dont have read it at all....
It is like your affirmation that neural network are not algorithmical because they are constituted by a family of algorithms...A family of algorithms is an algorithm, be it stochastical dont change this fact in a magical formula …«The procedure used to carry out the learning process in a neural network is called the optimization algorithm (or optimizer). »
What can I say ? to this ignorance that gives lesson about science without knowing that it is an ethical belief process not a religion (a static faith) like transhumanism propose it to be...
Now materialism being no more a serious scientific endeavour no more after Heisenberg and Bohr, then materialism becomes a new religion, swiftly dying like the Dawkins crowds …. This is the new fact after 1925 because materialism makes no more any sense....
Spirituality is the intuitive principle guiding the new science research trend....Traditional religions are now devoid of their spirituality and are mummified tradition without power except by reacting in a new forms of fanaticism....
The world change...
By the way guess who was the philosopher that gives the best analysis of Nazism and even if he is dead for 70 years, of transhumanism?
Enrst Cassirer the one you say cannot understand the new science …. :)
Digital "nets" directly on an IC with or without intentional noise (and often at low precision ... sort of like our brain), and if you want to play "word" games, that breaks your use of the word algorithm.
Analog nets (which really becomes almost exactly like our brain), and again, totally breaks YOUR use of the world "algorithm"
Just because it is implemented in hardware, does not mean it's not an algorithm, but it still does not resemble a human brain. Human brain is capable of being re-generative, and able to reconfigure itself.
and often at low precision ... sort of like our brain
That is not true at all. Human and animal brains are not "low precision". Some animal brains are capable of detecting noise or smell of extremely small level. Just before you don't sense it, does not mean the subconscious mind does not process it. There have been studies that show some birds can navigate by using electron quantum entanglement.
In the nervous system, a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron (or nerve cell) to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another neuron or to the target effector cell.
That is definitely not "low precision".
Think about it. If your conscious brain is constantly awared of what your brain is processing, you would be driven to insanity.
Anyway, I'll leave with this quote: "Millions of monkeys won't be able to produce a work of Shakespeare by just randomly pounding on the keyboards".
Living systems are not reducible to only machine, because they are conscious and linked all together to their "origin" that is the actual source of their information …. This information being symbolic and not only digital or analog...
That is not what Penrose posited
Why do you think he consider himself a Platonist like Godel or Whitehead or Ramanujan or Grotendieck?
Actually we have been able to artificially stimulate neurons and get predictable results so .... There goes one of your arguments out the window.
That makes possible my point about Penrose...
The fact that some part of the brain can act like a neural network or even a Turing machine cannot justify a complete reduction of the brain to these elements at all...
Most misunderstanding about Penrose conception are linked to the fact that most people imagine consciousness is generated by the brain process... For Penrose it is universal consciousness that generate the Brain …..
It is you that negate the simple very well known fact that neural networks are nothing more than a set of algorithm....
I guess that you have not listen to Naftaly Tishby conference that explain precisely that... After that saying that I dont understand Turing, neural network and stochastic process amount to only that void affirmation, ad hominem attack like you make one against others here ...
My affirmation is clear you dont know what an algorithm is, or can also be precisely a complex family of sub- algorithms that can mimic perception...(neural networks) .
It is you that assumes that neural network are not set of algorithms...
Anywhere this is that, a set of algorithms nothing else...
breaks YOUR use of the world "algorithm".
What is my use? 1-Algorithm is a concept generally define by Turing in his generality with is metaphorical machine...This is the essence of the classical computer....
2-Neural networks are akin to a perception organ, but they are designed with a set of algorithms...
3-The neurons are living entity and nobody has proven them to be reducible to neuron networks algorithm nor to Turing machine.... It is the contrary, neural networks comes from an idea from the time of the perceptron imagined metaphorically around the multiple layers of neurons....
The neurons in the human brain are pretty much just analog "computing" elements,
this is a BELIEF …. do you know it?
A neural networks is use to mimic perception....It is a complex set of algorithm not necessarily linear...
Turing machine is the way mimic a calculus or a reasoning process...It is a simple algorithm...
Neural networks+Turing Machine does not equal brain nor intelligence.... This is also a belief....
Do you know that science is a set of evolutive belief? Goethe says it beautifully : "History of science is Science itself" If it is not like Goethe said Science become a dogmatist attitude....
If it was not an evolutive belief, I will not be able to explain to you the difference between an "artificial soul" and a " living soul"....
The most important property of living organism is the all encompassing connexion to the "source".... This is my belief.... But I am not religious, my belief has his basis in a mathematical interpretation of the irrational basis of maths itself, his transcendental nature....Mathematic is irreducible to logic....Man use logic to understand some part of mathematics but will never be able to reduce it to a logical process... This is the reason why Godel believe in intuition and spirituality....
I doubt you will understand my point if I dare to expose it here....But who knows? :)
This is an interpretation for sure.... Science is a belief like religion.... the difference between the 2 is in the ethical and historical implementation process of this belief and his consequential effects ….
I will use Charles Sanders Peirce maxim : «Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. »
Guess who is right about the algorithm basis of A. I. ? andy2 or heaudio123
I would suggest some education in AI if you want to participate usefully in discussions with AI. One can only lead a horse to water.
«Neural networks are a set of algorithms, modeled loosely after the human brain, that are designed to recognize patterns.» https://pathmind.com/wiki/neural-network
Observe the presence of word ALGORITHM in this citation from wiki
Calling it artificial life will not transform it in a non-algorithmic miracle....
You accuse us in the beginning of not understand the Algorithmic set of equations behind neural networks but the way you define what is an algorithm here is false being too narrow:
That andy2 and mahgister and you kevin repeatedly describe it purely as algorithmic, i.e. the same data will always result in the exactly same answer to n-decimal places, clearly communicates that your knowledge of AI is rudimentary at best and hence you type long posts on an audio forum site
Your definition of algorithmic is too narrow here and does not correspond at all with the neural networks algorithm...You put it in our mouth perhaps with the back tought that it will be easy to refute that false definition of algorithm …But I dont think so.... I think you dont know the very general scope of the concept of algorithm linked to the Turing Concept...
Then not knowing what a neural network algorithm is you negate that A.I. neural network was in essence algorithmic...
You are assuming that AI is algorithmic and must follow the rules of a Turing machine. There is no such restriction.
But neural networks are algorithmic program …. Then?
Do you suppose machine will think with non algorithmical sauce?
I dont think that ….
I can develop my idea about Von Neuman Evolution and self replicating machine, also about the critics some mathematicians makes about Penrose use of Godel arguments, but I dont think you will be able to understand …
If you continue to use such a narrow definition of computer OR artificial intelligence, you will never understand it. If I called it artificial life instead of artificial intelligence, would it be easier for you to understand?
Actually I think you got backward. You can call it by whatever name, it's still computer AI based on algorithm.
cd318 Marketing has long abandoned the use of scientific data when attempting consumers to part with their money.
Today’s consumers often simply don’t have the time (or energy) to research purchases the way Steve Jobs once did when spending two weeks looking at washing machine performance data before actually buying one.
Audiophiles are no ordinary consumers, but even they will find scientific data in very limited supply - but not snake oil propaganda, not inference, not hearsay, not suggestion etc.
>>>>>Yeah, sure. 🙄 You might not be aware of it, but Steve Jobs was out of his ever-lovin’ mind. He didn’t even bathe for many years. That stinks, Steve! Besides, it’s a logical fallacy to say scientific data is in short supply, anyway. It has been my observation people who strenuously complain about scientific data are usually English majors. 😀
Yes, it’s fair to say that for the majority of consumers science may as well be dead.
Marketing has long abandoned the use of scientific data when attempting consumers to part with their money.
The world has changed and so has the consumer.
Today’s consumers often simply don’t have the time (or energy) to research purchases the way Steve Jobs once did when spending two weeks looking at washing machine performance data before actually buying one.
Audiophiles are no ordinary consumers, but even they will find scientific data in very limited supply - but not snake oil propaganda, not inference, not hearsay, not suggestion etc.
Even the entire world of audio journalism at times seems to be no more than an advertising arm of the well heeled parts of the industry!
When it comes to the exchange of money, for many, there are very few rules and even fewer principles. Sellers are sometimes in a live or die struggle and very few, it seems, are immune to bending the rules a little.
Or even a lot.
Sure the punch drunk consumer might have some legal recourse but it still requires time and energy they might not have.
Into this void steps forward Amazon and before long the whole world is in its sights.
heaudio123"I think we are done here. Like I said, you assign special characteristics to living beings without any evidenced based approach that these characteristics must be unique to living creature and if you are going to do that, then you are throwing science out the window"
Actually it is you who have ignored, discarded, and rejected the science of this because rather than apply reason, logic, and "rationale" to your position you prefer to rely on feelings, "gut reaction" and intuition, which is why I say that you are driven by faith and belief and that is fine! Faith has it's own value and needs no proof that is the way it works it is only a problem when you try to argue your faith justifying it with an "argument" that you want us to accept as scientific. Do you understand better now?
AI works by combining large amounts of data with fast, iterative processing and intelligent algorithms, allowing the software to learn automatically from patterns or features in the data.
It's hard to separate AI and algorithm. Maybe AI is a special case of algorithm but still an algorithm nevertheless, albeit very complex algorithm. And like all algorithms, it's evidence based, and maybe that is it's limitation. Human on the other hands, can create something unique, hence capable of creativity and that's different from AI.
Interesting term, if one stops to consider it obliquely (an assumed specialty....*wry g*....)
Consider Pandoras' Box....opened by curiosity, a hallmark of intelligence. The 'what/why' of modern thought....'modern' being an assumption, as 'modern' being a rather slippery time frame consideration....
"I was told not to open this....But, it can't be that bad, and I wonder what's ....."
Ooops.
Are we intelligent, or do we simply think we are?
Since the inverse of that statement implies a blind faith in the progression of human and humane progress and activity regardless of historical fact and present day fumbles and foibles....
“Ever see a cat try to jump across a big gap .. think no way he is going to make it, and sure enough, does not? That cat had self belief that they could make that jump. He couldn't actually, but he truly believed he could. Other animals make and use tools. We are not unique in that way. Our biggest advantage is we achieved enough intelligence to enable formal communication and formal communication has allowed us to pass down knowledge generation to generation such that we can keep building on previous generations,”
heaudio123 - your example of a cat attempting to jump a wall as what demonstrates belief is so naive, I am afraid it is impossible to have further discussion with you. You see, even IF your example did demonstrate belief as a sensibility that cats possess, no computer could ever begin to decide it ‘needed’ or ‘wanted’ to jump the wall, for any or no reason at all, other than what would qualify as need or want for that cat. And that’s how impossible anything even marginally more than that AI is capable of - but thank you for your reply just the same - kevin
Classical Turing machine, quantum Turing machine are linked to general algorithm theory for programming or partially auto programming networks, Qbits and Bits are only that, actual or virtual bits on an actual or virtual tape....
Hardwire can be quantum that’s all.... A.I. cannot be magically conscious because his hardwire is quantum grounded....
The reason why living organism are intelligent cannot be explained by quantum mechanics only....
Oh, and let’s ignore von Neumann, Shannon, Kalmagorov, Erdos, Godel, Well, Turing, Hardy, Nash ....
This is name dropping without direct link to the points in discussion.... all names i drop where motivated ONE by ONE , by some points that were discussed in each post, not throw in mass like you just makes the case...
Ok i am a bit tired..... i thank you for the discussion.... i wish you the best....
Or perhaps I am not arrogant enough to think my expertise on Anabelian geometry is at a level sufficient to analyze those at the very top of their fields even if that has not stopped you, with a rudimentary knowledge at best of AI?
I was just saying to you why I think that algorithmic maths is not enough to understanding Intelligence being it artificial or not....
You dont know what is the difference between an algorithmic process and a concept creation process that’s all....
You accuse me of not understanding anything …. I prove the contrary... I only pretend to be able to have an opinion, motivated by my search....I can be wrong totally about Mochizuki, but I dont think so for the time being.... The reason why I will not explain here....
dropped names (almost none of which have anything to do with AI)
Almost all A.I. powerful technology is mathematical idea.... There is many more complex idea in maths than only algorithmic one.... The names I drop was to remind you of that... If you develop some concept of intelligence you use some kind of maths; but if you have a totally different concept of intelligence you use another totally different mathematics.... Living system are not algorithmic machine at all...Penrose is right...His theory is debatable his intuition is not....
I drop name of philosophers because you dont gives a damn about them and thinking seriously without any philosophical knowledge is perilous....
I treat you like you treated others.... I am arrogant too sometimes.... :)
case closed for me.... think what you wish about my knowledge real or invented....
Throughout the latter half of the 1st millennia, both India and China were leaders in mathematics. The leaders have traditionally been someone from the most "organized" societies at the time.
read my post it is precisely What I said....
"there is some others in
the past ( Ramanujan) but many unknown to occidental culture"
Official occidental culture of the last 500 hundred years has not recognized this fact before this century...Islamic maths and Indian maths were underestimated completely 50 years ago....
In their report, Scholze and Stix argue that a line of reasoning near the end of the proof of “Corollary 3.12” in Mochizuki’s third of four papers is fundamentally flawed. The corollary is central to Mochizuki’s proposed abc proof.
Perhaps your own opinion is dependent of other not mine :)
You exactly prove the point you accuse others to... To be slave of the official general opinion in newspaper or citing others like a proof of your opinion....
My understanding of this is not linked to these mathematicians opinions.... I think by myself …. :)
It is normal tough, because you have no way to know who is right in this debate, or even having a guess about who is right or who is not.... :) Like for the algorithm concept which you dont know the encompassing power believing that quantum computer would magically abolish the limit of algorithm thinking for A.I....
Do you think that I was not conscious of this debate about Mochizuki Theory that is not a simple proof of the ABC conjecture but a totally new mathematic like none before ?
A proof can only be a proof if you can also understand the central vision in a theory....Without the right concepts no logical reasonings can works for "some" proof ….
Again, I come back to you are assigning "special" qualities to living creatures for which there is no evidence must be unique and exclusive from artificial intelligence.
Read about biological nano machines and molecular biology.... Be astonished! Plato said that being astonished is the first step of thinking....He is right, the phenomena that would make someone astonished are almost so varied than the difference between human characters...Without astonishment I dont think that the thinking process go very far.... By definition machine cannot be astonish at all...
My first astonishment and the most profound one were poetic experience at 15 years old and number theory at 24 years old.... For Darwin it was animals and flora... Many examples were anywhere to read about....
« Astonishment is contemplation without end, it is the reason why I miss the stop sign» Groucho Marx
A.I. dont know anguish, love, hate, fatigue, boredom, sufferings, mystical experience, etc only living body knows and lives that...
Do you know why?
Because they inhabit already many worlds simultaneously, and inform themselves collectively...
The mathematics of that inter-universal communication exist also for only 10 years now. and has created a worldwide debate...Your level of understanding is not enough to understand even a page trust me....
This is not remotely a definition of AI, but it does miss completely potential impacts of quantum mechanics (i.e. randomness) as opposed to primary target outcomes of quantum computing which practically attempts to eliminate randomness (stochastic result) from the results (while also taking advantage).
Here you touch without knowing it something I cannot explain in few words.... The difference between real soul and artificial soul.... Suffice to say that quantum mechanics cannot explain spiritual phenomena at all.... Only some aspect of it....The transcendental aspect of living intelligence is not linked to randomness capabilities in the brain, artificial or natural one...The transcendental aspect of living intelligence is also a network but transcendent to any stochastic limited processing, being it neural network, or quantum network....The mathematics of this living intelligence network transcend all mathematics existing now in the past.... Except some maths in the last 10 years...
Try Shinichi Mochizuki, he is one of the greatest disciple of Alexander Grothendieck the greatest mathematician of this century except Ramanujan....this is the first glimpse in this new mathematic.... Like I said in one of my post here, the geopolitical shifting on planet earth is also a cultural shifting.... For one of the first time in the last 2 thousand years, the greatest mathematician on earth is officially an Asian, there is some others in the past ( Ramanujan) but many unknown to occidental culture.......
I am not sure you understand the difference between an algorithmic result, i.e. 1+1 = 2, and a stochastic result, i.e. ~1 ~+ ~1 ~= ~2. Most adult will immediately get 1+1 = 2
Stochastic results or methods dont invalidate what I speak about when I speak about Turing Machine, quantum Turing machine, or A. I. in general which is neural networks Turing machine linked to quantum Turing machine... Stochastic methods are part of the algorithmic training of neural networks....
Why do you keep insisting an AI must be a touring machine and algorithmic?
Because I cannot correct all the books in the world to please you.... :)
…. it is plain for others to see that you dont know the general limits and power of the algorithmic concept.... You CANNOT understand even less the more complex symbolic concept creation that is way more powerful and over engineering thinking …. It is over your head now.... Sorry....
The argument that Cassirer life being some decade ago invalidate his thinking about symbolic process is ridiculous....A. I. is algorithmic in essence even at the quantum engineering level...
But there exist an "artificial soul" for machine.... But I doubt that I can explain this idea to you.... :)
Like I already said mathematics is not reducible to algorithmic theory of any kind, classical one or quantum one....
You are assuming that AI is algorithmic and must follow the rules of a Turing machine. There is no such restriction.
«A quantum Turing machine (QTM) or universal quantum computer is an abstract machine used to model the effects of a quantum computer. It provides a simple model that captures all of the power of quantum computation—that is, any quantum algorithm can be expressed formally as a particular quantum Turing machine.« Wikipedia will suffice....Have you read the world ALGORITHM in this wiki citation?
Hint: read about Hilbert spaces and the corresponding Turing Tape....
The only difference between a regular Turing machine and a quantum Turing Machine is the number of bits, countable in classic T. machine or Uncountable in the Quantum Turing machine....The A. I. is more captive than ever in an uncountable realm without the symbolic connection that links all together the living organism and their universal uncountable memory...
The difference between bits and Qbits dont abolish the difference between calculus, be it quantum, and symbolic creation of concepts...
A. I. cannot understand infinities even if his power is linked to the quantum realm...
The quantum computer will not be able to know when to halt, or going on, no more than a normal Turing machine,....
To know when to halt we need a concept or more trivially a living body vulnerable to fatigue or boredom, all 3 things alien to an artificial machine .... We called that a living brain- body... :)
implying that AI must be algorithmic which I have repeatedly said is not the case and which you either
Go and correct Wikipedia and after that all quantum computer books....Qbits is part of algorithmic theory....Good luck with the correction... :)
It seems that it is you that dont understand what is algorithm theory.... Then understanding the concepts and symbolic creation is over your head...
hint: Dont reduce yourself to the level of maths in a machine.... Learn poetry, it will be a counter exercise to liberate your brain of the machine like programs that inhabit you....
To put it more simply mahgister, you have not put forth any arguments that suggest any insurmountable barriers to artificial intelligence achieving and being able to achieve anything humans can do w.r.t. intelligence or creativity.
Do you know the " halting problem" in computer science?
If yes...
Do you know the peculiarities of the primes distribution in number theory? It is impossible to reduce prime number theory to algorithmic theory of any kind....
If yes...
Do you know why organic intelligence and human in particular know how to extricate itself of a road without end? (Halting problem)
Because the organic intelligence is not algorithmic precisely but symbolic species....
Do you know the Euclid proof about the infinity of primes number?
Do you know that modern maths were inaugurated By Cantor about the creation of a new family of concepts linked to infinities...
No A. I will never create the concept of infinities, not even the concept of the actual set of prime numbers and the geometry of P- adic numbers for example....
You know why?
Because it is symbolic and not exclusively algorithmic concept....And without symbolic thinking the A. I. will be captive of a road without end...
If you want to know what is a symbolic form, read the 1000 pages of Ernst Cassirer...
a caricatural hint: Symbolic+algorythmic = symbolic form
It seems that Penrose intuition about Godel and maths is way over your head already and this is the more simple and simplistic way to approach the problem tough...Penrose is a real thinker not a "scientist" and he knows a little bit more maths than most....
I will give you a hint: algorithmic thinking is linked to symbolic thinking concepts creation and the 2 together exceed any possible A. I.
... read Zalamea + Cassirer...
In a word any A. I. is captive in his universe, living being are not.... An old problem humans call the "soul"...
By the way, you cannot put an argument to reach truth.... You cannot understand what is over your head with what you called an argumentation game....
IT IS NECESSARY TO CREATE A CONCEPT BEFORE UNDERSTANDING ONE... This sound a bit paradoxical to you I bet? :)
You do not teach yourself mathematics with arguments.... You must develop symbolic perception and intuition.... maths is not reducible to rhetoric or logic even of the most algorithm sophisticated kind....maths is a symbolic form realm and a sea of concepts way more powerful than logic alone irreducible to any calculi...
I am a bit stubborn myself, and he was too arrogant against anyone...I am a bit arrogant myself but I dont treat people less knowledgeable than me with the side of my hand.... I want him to know that all people here are not vulnerable prey to his "knowledge"...
mahgister" you seems to idolizing technology...Not me... I prefer more sophisticated ideas and maths..."
You are trying to use reason, science, and math to argue with some one (heaudio) who relies instead on his inner feelings, "gut" instinct and intuition he "believes" that he is correct it originates, derives, and is rooted in his faith, conviction, and a form of religion and for that reason you will not convince him of his misunderstandings about the very basic, fundamental, central aspects of AI.
"
Mathematics is about creating concepts... Algorithm is subsidiary to that creation and cannot replace it..."
That is true but feelings and "gut" sense replace all for those who are so oriented, convinced, and "determined".
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
