 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Alcides Meza |
| | | | | | posted 7/26/2010 21:31 |   | | | | | | | | | This topic is annoying people again and again. The key question is: "How to do a computer software, limited, to fulfill unlimited (and unrestricted) thinking processes?"
The answer is very simple. And it has been all the time in front of us. This computer program has to be linked with human languages in such a way that language becomes its medium, a main part of the very process.
Unrestrictedness in language gives us unrestrictedness in artificial thought processes.
| | | Last edited by Alcides Meza @ 7/26/2010 9:32:00 PM | | |
| | |
tkorrovi |
| | | | | | posted 7/26/2010 22:04 | | | | | | | | | | Language is not a self.developing system and because of that it cannot by itself be a basic mechanism of an unrestricted system. Language also cannot make a restricted system unrestricted. What you imply is extending something beyond its base, which is a philosphical fallacy.
| | |
| | |
lrh9 |
| | | | | | posted 7/26/2010 22:20 | | | | | | | | | | A finite symbol set can generate an infinite grammar.
Even sequences composed of a single symbol can be used to represent all words.
a = red
aa = blue
aaa = yellow
...
However, if intelligence is a prerequisite for language then language is a product of intelligence instead of a producer of intelligence.
| | |
| | |
tkorrovi |
| | | | | | posted 7/27/2010 10:17 | | | | | | | | | | Yes symbol set is unrestricted but it is nothing but a minor inactive component. Symbol set is not intelligence. Whether grammar is intelligence, the opinions may vary, but even when it is, it is certainly a very restricted intelligence, because it is only a set of formal rules which enables to find the relations between words. And it even doesn't enable to find all relations between words. Even if it is infinite.
| | | Last edited by tkorrovi @ 7/27/2010 10:18:00 AM | | |
| | |
ts_ |
| | | | | | posted 7/27/2010 22:54 | | | | | | | | | | | |
lrh9 wrote @ 7/26/2010 10:20:00 PM:
However, if intelligence is a prerequisite for language then language is a product of intelligence instead of a producer of intelligence.
| |
Language is part of intelligence. It can be human language or some other kind of language, but intelligence can't exist without some sort of language. So this implies that we should study language before we try to create intelligence. And I am doing that: I study the language of logic before I try to create general intelligence. And language of logic is basically computing, like propositional calculus.
| | |
| | |
Alcides Meza |
| | | | | | posted 7/28/2010 01:15 | | | | | | | | | | | |
ts_ wrote @ 7/27/2010 10:54:00 PM:
Language is part of intelligence. It can be human language or some other kind of language, but intelligence can't exist without some sort of language. So this implies that we should study language before we try to create intelligence. And I am doing that: I study the language of logic before I try to create general intelligence. And language of logic is basically computing, like propositional calculus.
| |
1.- “Language is not a self.developing system”. Don’t forget that language is ours. We develop language in many ways. As we do so, “language is self-developing” from the point of view of artificial thought: the artificial thought receives language with its new developments as externals.
2.- “it cannot by itself be a basic mechanism of an unrestricted system”. This is the main error. Our thought is unrestrained… just because the vehicle of our thinking processes is precisely the languages we use! The essence of thought is the error, not the truth. Its essence arise from the fact that we can think anything, in the form we choose, with no restriction at all! The essence of knowledge is the truth. Its essence arise from the fact that we construct it guided by what we consider truthful.
3.- Philosophy is a result of our unrestrained thought. But philosophy is made of philosophical concepts, in the form of words.
4.- Language and intelligence. They are related, but none is component of the other. Language is a component of thought and it is a cultural phenomenon. Intelligence is a small component of thought.
5.- “restricted intelligence”. This is nonsense. The main characteristic of intelligence is precisely its unlimitedness. Abstract intellective functions could be applied to anything.
6.- “intelligence can't exist without some sort of language”. This is greatness. Intelligence operates over symbolisms. Open symbolisms. This idea is phenomenal.
| | | Last edited by Alcides Meza @ 7/28/2010 1:19:00 AM | | |
| | |
Alcides Iván Meza |
| | | | | | posted 7/28/2010 01:41 | | | | | | | | | | Since the very beginning, Aëxz has had unrestrictedness in the simple mathematical artificial thought, based partly in the mathematical natural and symbolic languages. In Aëxz 1.4, just in Spanish, the simple mathematical artificial thought can process 10**16 different operations, based in natural language. Right now, in Aëxz 1.5 -which I am developing- that number has risen to 10**30, because it includes questions like this one: "¿Cuál es el coseno de 30º?".
If I program the algebra in artificial thought, the unrestrictedness grows almost to infinite. So, you can see how language is making unrestrictedness in artificial thought.
| | | Last edited by Alcides Iván Meza @ 7/29/2010 12:42:00 AM | | |
| | |
tkorrovi |
| | | | | | posted 7/28/2010 01:49 | | | | | | | | | | If you extend language to all human thinking then yes, human thinking is self-developing. I considered that language is a set of language rules and vocabulary, and how can we consider otherwise when we talk about the relations between language and intelligence. The language rules are about how the words are related and they don't form a self-developing system, at least not by themselves. Language can be a part of self-developing system but it doesn't mean that it is by itself self-developing. Like computer is all about logic and a universal logic which enables to implement whatever, and logic is language, yet a computer cannot work by itself, it needs software which makes it to work. Software provides the ways how we apply that logic. The question here is about self-developing system, not the building blocks which can be used to make such system.
Without building blocks there cannot be a system, but building blocks by itself will not form a working system.
| | | Last edited by tkorrovi @ 7/28/2010 1:57:00 AM | | |
| | |
ts_ |
| | | | | | posted 7/28/2010 03:29 | | | | | | | | | | btw, it's better to have restricted and successful AI than unrestricted and unsuccessful. (successful in solving problems.) so i dont understand this hype about "unrestricted systems". it's just some imagination that unrestricted systems will be the key to AI, similar like neural networks, but in reality these approaches just make stupid AI.
| | | Last edited by ts_ @ 7/28/2010 3:36:00 AM | | |
| | |
ts_ |
| | | | | | posted 7/28/2010 03:34 | | | | | | | | | | | |
ts_ wrote @ 7/28/2010 3:29:00 AM:
btw, it's better to have restricted and successful AI than unrestricted and unsuccessful. (successful in solving problems.) so i dont understand this hype about "unrestricted systems". it's just some imagination that unrestricted systems will be the key to aI, similar like neural networks, but in reality these approaches just make stupid AI.
| |
ignore this message
| | | Last edited by ts_ @ 7/28/2010 3:37:00 AM | | |
| | |
tkorrovi |
| | | | | | posted 7/28/2010 07:19 | | | | | | | | | | I have never said that restricted AI is anyhow bad, it's the best solution for many purposes, just it's not True AI.
| | |
| | |
kimjo625 |
| | | | | | posted 7/29/2010 12:58 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Alcides Meza wrote @ 7/26/2010 9:31:00 PM:
This topic is annoying people again and again. The key question is: "How to do a computer software, limited, to fulfill unlimited (and unrestricted) thinking processes?"
The answer is very simple. And it has been all the time in front of us. This computer program has to be linked with human languages in such a way that language becomes its medium, a main part of the very process.
Unrestrictedness in language gives us unrestrictedness in artificial thought processes.
| |
Obviously you are in error by saying language, which is conceived much later in process of human brain development, is the source of avoiding restriction. But babies dynamically learn before attaining language and other species of animals do, too.
If you think "language" is the same as the sense of "logic", then you are also mistaken. The two can exist independently. Logic can be present in AI, however, if there is NO NEED OF COMMUNICATION, language is not need. Thus, biologically speaking, sociability is the key derivation of languages.
Restricted AI is limited in formulating responses because the maker of this AI has to put in exponentially more amount of pre-programmed responses to mimic human brain. Unrestricted AI, however, can learn to use/make restricted AI, thus, in terms of functionality, it's hard to beat unrestricted AI's. Human brain is an exampled of "unrestricted AI" (although, strictly speaking, human brains are not unrestricted. They just have high plasticity/flexibility and not at all COMPLETELY unrestricted.)
| | | Last edited by kimjo625 @ 7/29/2010 1:05:00 PM | | |
| | |
Alcides Iván Meza |
| | | | | | posted 7/29/2010 20:52 | | | | | | | | | | | |
kimjo625 wrote @ 7/29/2010 12:58:00 PM:
If you think "language" is the same as the sense of "logic",..
| |
Logic and language.
Have you studied symbolic logic, or mathematical logic, or deductive logic? If you did, you already know that logic has its own sub-language, as mathematics does, and as chemistry does, and as physics does. But, logic is not a language. What we know as logic, founded by Aristotle about 2300 years ago, is the second level of natural thought: the rational thought. Scientists have thoroughly studied this part of thought. But they have failed in studying the rest of it. We did not know about simple natural thought, and we have confused the intellective thought -the intelligence- with the whole thought.
| | |
| | |
will i dream |
| | | | | | posted 7/29/2010 20:56 | | | | | | | | | | "Since the very beginning, Aëxz has had unrestrictedness in the simple mathematical artificial thought"
i spent 3/4 weeks talking to you about this program
and this program did nothing - zero - zip
i asked you time and time again to explain the programs amazing ability to produce nothing - and to explain all your claims - and you just replied with more claims of its ability
has anyone here tried his program besides me for christ sake
| | |
| | |
Alcides Iván Meza |
| | | | | | posted 7/29/2010 21:12 | | | | | | | | | | | |
tkorrovi wrote @ 7/28/2010 7:19:00 AM:
just it's not True AI.
| |
"True AI".
The true artificial intelligence, the real artificial intelligence, is misunderstood. Being artificial intelligence just a part -a special part- of artificial thought, it will not decide if a software is artificial thought or not. For example, in Aëxz there is a lot of artificial thought, but there is no artificial intelligence at all, not yet, not directly. However, Aëxz solve 10**30 simple mathematical questions put in natural Spanish language. And the basic subroutine for this is only 555 Kb in Foxpro, Aëxz 1.5 version. If you think about this, you can compare with this sight: if any person in the whole world could have a computer, working 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, all the year, during all his life, lasting 2 centuries, all of them won't ask all the possible mathematical questions that Aëxz 1.5 can answer. And this is just a minimal part of mathematical thinking processes, so tiny that it is not important at all. We work with formulae, but if we speak up those formulae then we use this simple natural mathematical thought.
Aëxz 1.0 through Aëxz 1.5 does it using simple mathematical artificial thought, without any artificial intelligence -properly said-.
| | | Last edited by Alcides Iván Meza @ 7/29/2010 9:46:00 PM | | |
| | |
Alcides Iván Meza |
| | | | | | posted 7/29/2010 21:22 | | | | | | | | | | | |
will i dream wrote @ 7/29/2010 8:56:00 PM:
this program did nothing
| |
I wonder about what is happening to you with Aëxz 1.4. You have said you used it in Spanish. If you did so, maybe you have had problems with orthography. Aëxz does not correct by itself orthography mistakes. He (or it) simple does not accept them.
Other possible failure is the use of the <Enter> key within the main screen, the input screen of Aëxz. It is not allowed to use this key in your sentences. At the end of them. If you do push the <Enter> key at the end of the paragraph, Aëxz will crash. I have tried to solve this problem in Foxpro but it has been impossible. Maybe I don't know where in Foxpro language is the solution; I could not find it.
Let me know if this had helped you.
| | |
| | |
ts_ |
| | | | | | posted 7/29/2010 22:59 | | | | | | | | | | | |
kimjo625 wrote @ 7/29/2010 12:58:00 PM:
Obviously you are in error by saying language, which is conceived much later in process of human brain development, is the source of avoiding restriction. But babies dynamically learn before attaining language and other species of animals do, too.
If you think "language" is the same as the sense of "logic", then you are also mistaken. The two can exist independently. Logic can be present in AI, however, if there is NO NEED OF COMMUNICATION, language is not need. Thus, biologically speaking, sociability is the key derivation of languages.
| |
Language can't exist without logic. If a language is not logical then it's not language but noise/garbage/randomness. Babies don't speak language right when they are born because it's evolutionary more useful to learn specific language from their parents, but evolution could easily make humans that way that they would speak language the moment they are born. Language is written in our genes. Animals learn, but did you think about how they save this knowledge in their brain? It has to be in some format, and we can call this language, because this format could be potentially used as language for communication. So language is very important.
| | |
| | |
kimjo625 |
| | | | | | posted 7/30/2010 02:56 | | | | | | | | | | | |
ts_ wrote @ 7/29/2010 10:59:00 PM:
Language can't exist without logic. If a language is not logical then it's not language but noise/garbage/randomness. Babies don't speak language right when they are born because it's evolutionary more useful to learn specific language from their parents, but evolution could easily make humans that way that they would speak language the moment they are born. Language is written in our genes. Animals learn, but did you think about how they save this knowledge in their brain? It has to be in some format, and we can call this language, because this format could be potentially used as language for communication. So language is very important.
| |
Oh, I see. We just have different definition of "language" and "logic".
What I meant by language is human language. Not the language of C++ or language of DNA or language of neurons.
If you define language as any patterned set of information and structure, yes, of course, neurons do have language, and "logic" itself is a language as well.
But, you have to admit that "logic"(in the sense of understanding causality and solving problems) precedes "human language". Animals do have logic (rather weak logic system compared to humans, nonetheless they do "understand" causality).
We often think that since we build logic in our human language, they are inseparable, however, I think otherwise: they are separable. "Logic" is a glorified "judgment sector" in our brains which can exist independently from "language sector" in our brains. They can be specialized and differentiated.
This is, in my opinion, why strictly logical scientists have some problem "transitioning" to human language.
Sometimes your logical idea is hard to be articulated. (And yes, I do not think all ideas can be expressed as human language. It remains as orchestrated signals in the brain)
*IMPORTANTLY
I think we "save" our "logic statements" different form than "human language". I think there is a "translation" between "logic form" to "human language form" and visa versa.
But, in case of humans, "logic" and "language" has been related so closely that it is almost not distinguishable (meaning, you just do it.)
I expect you can create a "true AI" which has logic separately from language.
(chatbots have "human language" but they often lack viable logic)
| | | Last edited by kimjo625 @ 7/30/2010 2:57:00 AM | | |
| | |
tkorrovi |
| | | | | | posted 7/30/2010 09:03 | | | | | | | | | | | |
ts_ wrote @ 7/29/2010 10:59:00 PM:
Language can't exist without logic.
| |
Language can exist without human thinking, as it is a set of formal rules, you can carve them into stone.
| | |
| | |
will i dream |
| | | | | | posted 7/30/2010 12:33 | | | | | | | | | | I cant believe people are looking to create an AI by looking at human speech/language
typically starting at the wrong end again
Irh9 said it from the start - and he is right
"However, if intelligence is a prerequisite for language then language is a product of intelligence instead of a producer of intelligence."
the first hominid's that walked out of the jungle were inteligent
the first mammals that existed were intelligent
the fact we are here if proof
what language were they using?
but people are trying to understand intelligence by looking at human speech
look at people born with no sight or hearing (ungraciously reffered to as deaf and dumb)
they are far from dumb - they are very intelligent
Intelligence resides in the structure's,mechanics and functions of the brain.
The eveloution of human speech dramatitacly increased our global level of intelligence (teaching)
but it did not create it
Look at ants -
individually - fairly useless - limited intelligence - life expectancy low
But with the queen's use of language (chemical signals aparently) - they combine to work together. harmonise into a super organisim
But without the individual ants basic intelligence they would not function in any way.
to get a program to THINK is the hard part
to get it to talk thereafter is simple in comparrision
| | | Last edited by will i dream @ 7/30/2010 12:47:00 PM | | |
|
|
|
|
|
