The Impossibility Of Classical Artificial Intelligence

[HydrogenBond]

There are other factors, such as 3-D memory storage. This is not physical geometry storage, but a different type of data organization. One way to describe this is to consider a 3-D sphere in space. We can approximate that sphere with a large number of 2-D circles with a common center point, but at all the different angles. Each 2-D circle is a logic plane of cause and effect. By tweaking the 3-D memory as a unit, via interaction with other 3-D memory, we can add some twists with respect to any given plane of logic. One can create what appears to be an irrational jump on or off any given plane logic. But this is 3-D logical.

 

Let me give an example. Morality breaks things into good and evil. These are two logic planes at 90 degrees. They represent the extremes of the moral behavior data and logic. Based on the assumption that both good and evil are part of a singular phenomena (center point), we induce the inception of a 3-D memory organization, but with most of the planes still missing. One may then argue exceptions where good and evil are not clear cut. This adds other logic planes, often between the two fixed, but biased toward one or the other.

 

The brain sort of does that on its own, with new ideas popping into old and into new planes. A new idea that is not part of any plane, may require we come up with a new line of reasoning to define that rational plane. This adds to the 3-D, etc. Since it is a logic plane on the 3-D memory, we can trigger the 3-D memory, which is perceived as that gut feeling. Many associate that 3-D feeling or intuition to mean their preferred logic plane is valid, especially, when the 3-D twitches and add a new ideas to that plane. It may also add to another plane that is not yet conscious. Then one may try to reverse engineer the result to it can be supported with a line of reason for another logic plane. But all still have one center that takes generations to fill in.

 

When a specialist learns everything about something they define a common 3-D center. If open minded, new ideas pop between existing planes or into existing planes. Then is the long process of defining the new plane with careful thought experiments.

[Kriminal99]

3d logic spheres? really?

 

I thought you were actually making an argument about logic circuits being fused together in some way, which can easily be modeled using neural nets in general. Then you gave the example about morality with good and evil being perpendicular logic planes.

 

You use way too many metaphors in your reasoning. You cannot deduce anything of value in that fashion. Even when using metaphors that are closely tied to a well understood formal model, it can be exponentially hard to keep track of what ways the metaphor is the same and what ways it is different from the model. You are just way out there in outer space.

[Kriminal99]

I know what the Turing test is but I believe Alan wasn't so much interested in matters that we might call personality rather than intelligence. I think his criterion overlooks this as well as the fact that so many folks are blithering idiots, one may raise many objections toward the TT on these grounds. If the candidate software comes across comparably to the dumbest people you've known, including its mistakes and incongruities, you couldn't really say it is too dumb to be a human on the other side.

 

One could even go as far as to say that sofware conceivably could fail the TT for being clearly too smart and quick. To the purpose of illustrating this point, let's take an example that is too specific to call AI but already exists and can be put to the "restricted TT" by asking lads like Kasparov to distinguish Deep Blue from another grand master. He accused IBM of having cheated, because it seemed too creative not to be a human player. Some say that advances in chess software have called into question all the decades of technique, which were very valuable against the best human players but don't defeat the newest algorithms. This means they are already at the point where a grand master can deem it too smart to be a human opponent and this is clearly because the tractability of the problem is beyond our capabilities so we have always used heuristics but these turn out to be inadequate against the machines.

 

I don't see this being around the corner for general purpose AI systems but I think it is worth pointing out the distinctions in what we mean by intelligence and problem solving, creativity, personality and even whimsical behaviour. I think the TT is not quite as relevant as Turing thought.

 

I agree with him. I think the Turing Test is useless. If I was asked to participate, I would ask a single question that would completely disqualify any computer even if the computer did have human level intelligence. The question is "So.... Brunettes or Redheads?"

 

General Intelligence is completely separable from the human condition. There may be some rules about asking questions like this, but regardless of how many such rules there are they are still inadequate to prevent the same kind of disqualification of intelligent computers.

 

When Strong AI is created, I don't think we will need a test to know that it is strong AI. You will see it operate for a couple minutes then go to Home Depot to stock up on industrial strength magnets and spherical objects.

[HydrogenBond]

Understanding 3-D logic might be difficult to understand for those trained in 2-D logic (cause and effect). This might be analogous to someone who uses 1-D thinking might have a problem with 2-D logic.

 

Let me explain. 1-D thinking is linear. It does not reason the result, but simply memorizes the bottom line. As an example, traditions are not meant to be reasoned, by rather one simply follows these in a linear way without giving it too much thought. Santa Claus has a red suit. We don't reason that 1-D tradition, but simply accept it.

 

As an example of the contrast between 1-D and 2-D, say we were in an ancient village working on the farm. The way we dig the earth is with a short 2ft stick with a point. Out fathers did it this way, and their fathers and their father's father's etc., so we continue this tradition in 1-D fashion. We don't think about it, just do it.

 

A young budding 2-D thinker, ponders how this digging on the farm with a 2ft stick is very tiring on his back. If I could stand up while digging this would be easier. However, if I stand up, my stick is too short to dig. Based on cause and effect, he infers if I make the stick longer, I could dig and stand up. He does an experiment and it works. He goes back to the tribe to spell out his reasoning process for his new improvement. Since they are linear or 1-D, they are not trained to think and can't understand cause and effect. The tradition of the ancients is the 2 ft stick. How dare he challenge the traditions. He is a witch.

 

To get around the bias of 1-D thinking, he may have to be clever. He takes his 2ft stick and cuts it in the middle, part way, so it can break when he digs. This is an old stick, passed down for many many generations, so there is a huge risk he is taking, since he will shame his family. They have pity on him and tell him to get a new stick and get back to work. So he acts dumb, running around in circles with grief and then comes back with his 5ft stick and starts to dig. Some see him standing and digging. Others are mad at his break from 1-D tradition. He can't reason at 2-D, but hopes for a better tradition because some will use their intuitive common sense or instinct since this is better for the body. This connects to the instinctive 3-D memory even if it skips 2-D.

 

The 3-D memory appears connected to many rational planes having a common center. One physical example of 3-D memory storage is the DNA. When we fertilize a human ovum, from this single DNA center, we can grow a spatially integrated human being. The many differentiated cells, each have a logical function in the scheme of things, yet all have the the same center or DNA. The needs of the entire 3-D human, can tweak a wide range of differentiated logic planes (cells) to get an integrated response.

 

The development from the initial fertilized ovum, adds 2-D planes, first as stem cells. These are loose logic planes with a lot of conceptual flexibility. These are gradually altered into differentiated cells, by filling in the logic planes in the middle between stem cells, until the 3-D ball is complete.

[Kriminal99]

But like what are you actually talking about. You gave a metaphor about digging with a stick... but what is "3D logic". Do you have like a formalization? You said something about DNA being an example of 3d logic. Dna has interesting properties and can result in the creation of a 3 dimensional living being. There is hardly enough of a connection there to define some kind of "3d logic" though.

 

Dimensions don't really have anything to do with logic or reasoning...

[HydrogenBond]

The use of 1-D, 2-D and 3-D memory, was not intended to mean physical geometry, but rather a way to help visualize the three basic levels of thought processing. For example, logic is 2-D since it is based on cause and effect. Cause and effect are analogous to the X,Y axis on a graph, with a line of reasoning moving between these axis. This process occurs on a rational plane. The geometry analogy is for comparative visualization and should not be confused with physical geometry.

 

If you look at 1-D thinking this is linear. If we blindly accept something, we essentially have an effect without cause. We only use the Y-axis. For example, Santa Claus wears red. If simply accept this as the way it is, we see and know the effect, but we don't know the cause. The 1-D thinker uses only an effect axis, without too much thought about the cause and effect. He does not need to think outside the line of effect, into the plane of reason or cause and effect.

 

With 3-D thinking we now have three axis. The X,Y, Z.

 

The analogy of a ball in 3-D, with many rational planes is one way to help explain. When we discuss things on the forums, the members present their logic on any subject using a 2-D plane of cause and effect. But since many different people will have their own POV, each may present the data and analysis but from their unique angle. The X,Y are not fixed, like in math, but only represent 2-D reasoning of cause and effect with the unique angle of each person, the many planes of the 3-D ball. We can have X1,Y1, X2,Y2, but both are 2-D.

 

With 3-D there is a manipulation of the X,Y,Z axis similar to cause and effect, but with something else needed to define the Z-axis. During creative hunches, often the idea appears before the logical analysis. The scientists states his theory before he begins to prove it. But he sort of knows where it expects or hopes it will go The creative process begins with something similar to 1-D or an effect, without all the needed cause and effect, but it nevertheless results from logical thinking using cause and effect.

 

A classic example is Archimedes. he was pondering floating and sinking objects within water but could not complete his logic. While sitting in the tub, the key effect for the analysis appears; Eureka!. He then goes back and establishes the logic from with this spontaneous effect was based. As such, 3-D thinking sort of amounts to cause and effect, effect. Cause and effect follow logically, while the second effect breaks away and needs to be back reasoned to give the effect a cause. What can happen in 3-D is the second effect can appear.

 

Many effects within 1-D thought appear without cause and effect. The curious or skeptical goes back to give the 1-D effect a logic explanation. In the case of 3-D, the brain generates new linear effect, but from a 3-D perspective composed of many 2-D planes at different angles. Then we reverse engineer a new 2-D.

 

If you think that is confusing, 4-D is even harder to explain and understand, since it involves time projections of 3-D memory. The effect may not even appear to follow from anything in temporal logic, but makes sense only after many other things happen first. One possible example come from some sci-fi writers, who predict future effects that make much better in the future. It may appear hard to reason in their day, since the cause and effect links are not there yet. Later in the future, when science logic has advanced enough, we can give this effect a valid cause. I suppose 4-D, is cause and effect, cause and effect, but with a time delay. I am not sure how to program this but I can sort of map it out.

 

When we launched in May 2000, we wanted to create a site to share science-related content of all kinds on the web. As time passed, our site turned into a pure science forum with lots of cool people.

 

The vision of the founders of the site, needed many things to happen before the effect (their vision), had its cause.

[Kriminal99]

Reasoning using abstract metaphors like this is dangerous. There is a constant threat of attributes of the compared object being related to the original idea when they really don't belong. Continuing your metaphor, I could say all kinds of silly things like I used Pythagorean theorem to validate my logic triangle or I REASON IN 6D BEEEOTCH! It takes an inordinate amount of unnecessary work to translate these back into arguments about logic before you can even begin to validate if they are true or not. I have seen people with much higher IQ's than my own fall into this trap and lose all ability to do much of anything with their intelligence as they are confounded trying to translate such arguments back and forth and determine their real meaning.

 

I agree that there is such a thing as intuition, but the explanation for this is rather simple. We have a subconscious mind that is calculating all kinds of things that we are not aware of. Why do we get mad on instinct when a certain thing happens? Because our subconscious mind calculated that a loss was occurring that we could prevent from happening. If someone asks us why we are angry, we then have to "back reason" to figure out what it really is exactly. But really what we are doing is deductively reasoning given the context. We don't have direct access to our subconscious mind. I'm not sure what dimensions or cause and effect have to do with this process. It seems to serve only to confuse.