[iDC] if AI were a reality, which, currently, it is not

Mon Mar 17 17:48:15 UTC 2008

Two points: 

One:
Actually, we don't disagree about the likelihood of AI becoming a reality.  
We disagree about *why* it is unlikely to become a reality.  I disagree 
with the physicality argument.  Unless you believe in magic, it seems 
that the gist of that position is that people can *experience* - ie, they 
have senses and their existence in space and exposure to things - via 
their senses - informs their ability to comprehend the information they 
come across. This is the only thing that separates them from 
machines.  I don't believe in magic, and I don't believe it is impossible 
to replicate the senses (as to the latter point, I suspect pattern 
recognition is more than enough to accomplish this feat).  Instead, I 
believe that there is nothing mystical about humanity, or 
special about the senses, but that what makes us human is simply our 
complexity - an extremely non-trivial problem, especially when 
tackled using concrete logic.  If nothing else, people are successful at 
being people  in their willingness to embrace contradiction, something 
which computers are unable to do at this time, and at a very fundamental 
level.  There is more difference than this, of course, but certainly this 
is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to modern efforts at AI.

Two:
As for my "Church" - my "Church" is the one that says a person ought to 
find realistic solutions to problems, not sit around crying like a damn 
baby that someone else ought to solve their problems for them.  My church 
is the church of construction, not deconstruction.  Deconstruction is for 
hothouse flowers that can't be bothered to work for what they desire 
and/or who are too afraid of making something that visibly doesn't work to 
even try.  It's easy to tear down an existing system.  It's preposterously 
hard to build a new one that works, but nonetheless we must try lest we 
end up doing nothing but sitting proudly atop our rubble.

I don't believe all people should learn to program.  But I do believe that 
if you truly feel that you are in thrall to an evil semantic overlord, 
there is a solution that is *legitimately* within reach to rectify the 
problem.  Your comparison to television was weak because there is no 
legitimately realistic solution to changing what is on the channel, not 
one that the average person can take upon themselves.  Programming, on the 
other hand, while specialized, is nonetheless within reach and therefore 
practical to my mind.  If data doesn't trouble you, don't learn to 
program.  If democracy doesn't interest you, don't vote, or vote along 
your party line instead of doing your research.  On the other hand, if you 
feel strongly enough to believe you should retain a level of control over 
these things from the powers that be, then, yes, I am afraid you must take 
the matter into your own hands at some point. 

So, to that end, you think semantic web standards are broken.  What do you 
propose to replace them?
-Alexis

+ --------
   redheadedstepchild.org
        ------- +

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Paul Prueitt wrote:

::Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:06:21 -0500
::From: Paul Prueitt <psp at ontologystream.com>
::To: subbies at redheadedstepchild.org
::Cc: Sandy Klausner <klausner at coretalk.net>, idc at mailman.thing.net,
::    susan.turnbull at gsa.gov
::Subject: if AI were a reality, which,  currently, it is not
::
::I am thankful for this note, as it clarifies some things.
::
::The issue that we seem to disagree over is seen in the word "currently:
::
::> The only way that would be possible is if AI were a reality, which,
::> currently, it is not.
::
::The argument that Penrose and Robert Rosen and others make, is that, like
::creating life from abstractions; abstractions may only be a part of
::intelligence.  One need actual substance, and the silicon computing paradigm
::does not have that substance.  In fact Pribram and I and others regard the
::necessary substance as something that deals with emergence, locality and
::non-locality in a way seen in the emergence of function in biological systems.
::
::There is no future to AI.  What there is is a recognition of the things you
::are saying about the nature of the problem in data interoperability and the
::aggregation of information into a synthesized presentation (un touched by a
::centralized control).
::
::The nature of the Church that you may have membership in is illustrated by the
::statement:
::
::>  We do, however, have the ability to
::> program computers using whatever algorithm we feel is most meaningful and
::> most able to send us the information we want.  Perhaps you are mad because
::> the other people are not doing it for you in the way you most desire.  In
::> which case I say learn to program.
::
::First, I am not mad, not upset and not insane.  I am insistent about a
::specific point of what I and others regard as science.  I am also insistent
::that the programmer class should not be forced on all of us .  Suppose we take
::your statement at face value and evolve a culture where the right to vote
::depends on one's programing ability?
::
::Why not let them eat cake?
::
::
::
::
::
::
::On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:43 AM, subbies at redheadedstepchild.org wrote:
::
::> Sigh.  I'm no disciple of anyone but myself, thanks.
::> 
::> As for "the point is that interpretation by a human in context is where
::> meaning is defined" - I would completely agree with this, which is
::> precisely why I think you're tilting at windmills.  In spite of that
::> pretty statement you made, the ROOT of your argument is in fact a
::> complaint that machines are not currently capable of human nuance, that
::> they are not able to glean meaning from data.
::> 
::> To glean meaning is not the purpose of machines.  To glean meaning is the
::> purpose of humans.  The purpose of machines is to assist humans with tasks
::> that are too herculean for them to complete unaided.  Given the vast
::> amount of data presented to us, interpreting it all, unaided, in its naked
::> glory, is quite impossible.  To that end, machines are needed to sift.
::> But they are not, nor should they be, employed to derive meaning from the
::> data.  The only way that would be possible is if AI were a reality, which,
::> currently, it is not.
::> 
::> Your statement that machines will push information to us like TV is
::> ludicrous.  We have no control over what the television gives us beyond
::> changing the pre-programmed channel.  We do, however, have the ability to
::> program computers using whatever algorithm we feel is most meaningful and
::> most able to send us the information we want.  Perhaps you are mad because
::> the other people are not doing it for you in the way you most desire.  In
::> which case I say learn to program.  You are only as much a slave to the
::> W3C as you allow yourself to be.
::> -Alexis
::> 
::> + --------
::>    redheadedstepchild.org
::>         ------- +
::> 
::> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Paul Prueitt wrote:
::> 
::> ::Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:50:49 -0500
::> ::From: Paul Prueitt <psp at ontologystream.com>
::> ::To: subbies at redheadedstepchild.org
::> ::Cc: Sandy Klausner <klausner at coretalk.net>, idc at mailman.thing.net,
::> ::    susan.turnbull at gsa.gov
::> ::Subject: Re: [iDC] please make comments regarding semantic overlay term
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:49 AM, subbies at redheadedstepchild.org wrote:
::> ::
::> ::>  Semantic standards are not designed
::> ::> to aid humans in understanding the data that passes across the web -
::> they
::> ::> are designed to assist machines in parsing the data and delivering it to
::> ::> humans.
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::Oh my.   So in the near future we will be the receivers of massive amounts
::> of
::> ::data, that the system pushes on us; but which is not organized to be
::> ::meaningful to us.
::> ::
::> ::Hummm.. sounds like we already have that, it is called TV.  The Internet
::> could
::> ::be and is more.  The potential is for true social networking driven by a
::> ::demand economy.  The demand side is what we do not now have fully
::> operational.
::> ::Balance balance balance.   Supply side by itself is ruining American, and
::> the
::> ::world.
::> ::
::> ::There is an organization to the ads and the TV programming, and there is
::> value
::> ::sometimes; but mostly this just feeds the addiction that is wasting the
::> Earth,
::> ::its resources and its people in the pursuit of consumption.
::> ::
::> ::The point is that interpretation by a human in context is where meaning is
::> ::defined; unless you are one of the disciples of the Current Church of IT
::> ::(CCIT) Incorporated.
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::> ::
::
::