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.
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 ….
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....
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....
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....
“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
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....
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.
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?
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.
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. 😀
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.
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 …
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. »
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) .
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?
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".
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 …. :)
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.
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...
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....
You rant about precision now.... My point was not about the fact that neuron were precise or not, it is you that spewed this non sense to Andy2....
My point was that : saying that "neuron are not precise" in itself has absolutely no meaning....Because precision and sensivity are relative notions linked to one another.... Sensitivity vary in an organ or an instrument with his resolving precision range, linearly, non linearly, logarithmically etc....
Ok you speak about "dissipation-driven adaptive organization," That does not contradict Schrodinger , that is a new interpretation of the second principle role in living evolutive system....And implicatin an organism in a new way with his environment, does not negate the specificity of life at all...Life is not reducible to the 2 principle. life incorporate it....
«Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. A plant, for example, is much better at capturing and routing solar energy through itself than an unstructured heap of carbon atoms. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well »
This indicate that living system are not separate of the other system they are all linked in ONE universal system....That does not say that life is a machine because it self organize.... That go in my direction....All universe is living....
Heaudio ,Your reference to Jeremy England go in my direction....life is a universal fact, an organism and his environment are linked and there is no more separation between the 2 in a sharp line dividing living from non living....That complete Schrodinger and does not invalidate his reflexion….Life use the second principle.... He would rejoice to the idea....
The self organizing potential of matter is deeply buried in quantum mechanics and more profoundly in the mathematics of prime number theory.....Investigate the link between the crystals and quasi-crystals property of matter and primes numbers …..
By the way prime number distributions is the schematic pattern of the universal living memory....( my own reflexion) and the source of all information for all living system and even of the universe....
Prime numbers are not a rational fact or an irrational one....Prime numbers are a FACT more solid than the existence of any object in the universe... More complex than the universe itself....Mathematics are founded on a spiritual FACT, not on logic... There is no logic in Mathematics no more than in music, only a spiritual vision of the infinite, that man can communicate partially, using rationality, cutting some pieces to suggest the whole....The whole refracted in the prime number series is located in a non algorithmic universe that look like schematically like a quasicrystal or a musical piece...A musical piece is totally coherent and cohesive without being logical...Great mathematicians are always artistic spiritual and intuitive and creative....They create new world and new concepts...
The fact that life is not reducible to the second law of thermodynamic ,makes him say that life violate the second principle....
But the fact that life USE the second principle does not contradict the fact that life is not reducible to the second principle... And that Schrodinger will love it... His intuition is that life is not a mechanical process... this is not a salad this is fact....
"Your neuron is not precise" is a sentence with no meaning, even after all you arguing rant to explain it...Neuron are not machine would have do it clearly....
A simple sentence will do better: Neuron are sensitive and they are not like a machine .... No more arguing.... This is what you want to say saying it wrongly...
Neurons are living systems like other cells or animals or being like me....
I own a part of me that act like a machine.... When I play tennis I am a kind of machine....When I drive a car... Etc
In this sense neuron like me are also machine... But it is not what you are saying..... This is the difference between your reductive perspective and mine...Neuron like any other living system can act like a machine but are not machines...
Schrodinger does not describe life negatively, he describe his apparent manifestation, and said all that is not mechanical, then dont reduce to the second principle....The fact that living system use his environment to dissipate his entropy in a continuous way does not reduce life to the second principle and this is what you said...
The latest hypothesis / theories is that life may actually be a predictable outcome of the the 2nd law of thermodynamics
The fact that life use his environment to adjust itself and dissipate his entropy in an improved continuous way does not justify your affirmation that life is only a predictable outcome of the second principle at all….This new hypothesis of Jeremy England is only a more interesting way to characterise systems that are more complex than the Prigogyne far from equilibrium systems and dissipative structures and complete it... That’s all....
Laws dont exist eternally, they are temporary manifestation at a certain level of the universe of the relative human understanding....
Thanks on a certain level a good briefing of the situation.... :) I am stubborn like him but I try not to depreciate others....I try.... Perhaps I was not so successful here.... :)
By the way I am a Chet Baker fan.... My best to you....
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.
