"Arthur T. Murray" <·····@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
·············@news.victoria.tc.ca...
> 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" schrieb:
> "Arthur T. Murray" <·····@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> ·············@news.victoria.tc.ca...
> > 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.
:(
Some of these sides are old. Arthur T. Murray may have less time to read
through the doc mountains and update the old stuff on some sides. But as
you can see, step by step he does this.
stefan
From: Arthur T. Murray
Subject: Re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <3f6486c3@news.victoria.tc.ca>
stefan <·······@freenet.de> wrote on Sat, 13 Sep 2003:
[...]
>> > A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence
>> > is at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html --
[...]
> Some of these [pages] sides are old. Arthur T. Murray may have
> less time to read through the doc mountains and update the old
> stuff on some [pages] sides. But as you can see, step by step
> he does this.
Yes, thank you, Stefan. The Mentifex AI Mind project is running
out of time, and funding, but somehow not motivation -- luckily,
the process of communicating Open Source AI memes is enjoyable.
Now in 2003 it is time to turn the AI Mind project over to many
computer scientists who program in various languages listed at
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/java.html under "See also..."
A redundant package of the most important Mentifex AI files is
being established at various 'Net domains in isolation from
other Mentifex AI sites so as to ensure memetic survivability.
Weblogs have advanced from Jorn Barger's lone voice crying in
http://www.robotwisdom.com -- the wilderness -- to a torrent.
Early in 2003 I decided to move into weblogs to promote AI4U
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ AI textbook.
In mid-2003 the realization struck me that all the Mentifex
webpages devoted to artificial intelligence programming in
more than twenty programming languages could be re-designed
and modified into much more appealing weblogs such as the
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/lisp.html "Lisp AI Blog."
Therefore at multiple, redundant Web domains, "XYZ AI Blogs"
for each "XYZ" programming language are linking locally to
a complete set of the AI Mind documents and AI source code
necessary for "Re-interpretation of Mind.Forth and AI4U Mind
Theory in Java using object oriented technigues" e.g., from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- an AI offshoot.
The power of weblogs is unparalleled, Eugene. Miya himself
will obey das Unbestimmtheitsprinzip of Werner Heisenberg
whereby to observe a phenomenon is to change the phenomenon.
With respect to the mini-galaxy of Proglang-XYZ AI Weblogs,
webloggers of language XYZ who start coding DIY AI Steps
and post the source on their own weblogs will do as J$ at
http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html has done.
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
Hei
In 99 I start a similar page-set in html. For me it began as a kind of
short text from other longer texts and for my personal remeber/learn
effects. It grows and grows and so I overworked it and put it on my
homepage. I call it "hal - do not" and it is written in german language.
The Problem with the languages I solved with pseudo-code. So the reader
can have an impression and it could be transformed into ones favorite
language. To run behind every possible programming-language, ohh, have
you doubled your brain or update the memory there?
The other problem is open until today. This is the AI subject differs
in so many diretions, that it seems to be impossible to give an
overview, or sometimes to follow the hackers latest tricks.
Also it is very hard to get new code about algorithmn or things like
that. This I can understand, but then the html page is out of date and
who wants to read old stuff? Now it is only me who have a big interesst
in such things and sometimes I drop a note to my htm pages.
An other possible way is to look around for authors of one-man-made
internet sides and talk to them to do the thing together. I'm sure you
have a great url-collection, my favorite is future-ai (also in german).
And when you realized that the link list to interesting documents
becomes to a mega-scroll event, this shows how necessary a good
AI-portal is in the world. But I think, more AI is need to keep them
together ...
> Weblogs have advanced from Jorn Barger's lone voice crying in
> http://www.robotwisdom.com -- the wilderness -- to a torrent.
> http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html
Aha. I think I surf a round through that. Thank you.
> Unbestimmtheitsprinzip of Werner Heisenberg
This is funny in binary thoughts isn't it? (It is null and not null so
it is one but this is the same.) But the idea is great, needs more bits
and goes a bit like fuzzy. And soon I'm elsewhere and do some (.(~)#) to
see what comes back. :)
stefan
Oh, (hope the link works) size:411964-
http://people.freenet.de/LIN8080/hal0000.zip
·····@victoria.tc.ca (Arthur T. Murray) writes:
> A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence is at
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html -- updated today.
How about using a mailing list where everyone interested in your
website can subscribe and is informed about your frequent updates?
If everybody posted their update notifications through usenet the news
servers would immediately break down from overload. So please be
polite and use the appropriate channels to communicate with the
readers of your website.